Skip to main content

Full text of "The "Summa theologica" of St. Thomas Aquinas"

See other formats


LIBRARY OF 

WELLES LEY COLLEGE 




PURCHASED FROM 
Sweet Fund 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries 



http://www.archive.org/details/summatheologicao33thom 



THE -SUMMA THEOLOGICA" 



#ihii m&ttti. 

F. INNOCENTIUS APAP., O.P., S.T.M., 

Censor Theol. 

Impxxmntnx. 

EDUS. CANONICUS SURMONT. 

VicARius Generalis. 

Westmonasterii. 



APPROBATIO ORDINIS. 

V. G. McNABB, O.P., S.T.B.. 
W. L. MOORE, O.P., S.T.L. 

imynm;jtttt. 

F. HUMBERTUS EVEREST, O.P., S.T.B., 

Prior Provincialis ANGLiiE. 

LONDINI, 

die 7 Mat- Hi, 19 14. 



THE 

"SUMMA THEOLOGICA 

OF 

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS 

PART III. 1 

LITERALLY TRANSLATED BY ' 

FATHERS OF THE ENGLISH DOMINICAN 

PROVINCE 



THIRD NUMBER 
(QQ. LX.— LXXXIII.) 



R. & T. WASHBOURNE, LTD. 
PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 

AND AT MANCHESTER, BIRMINGHAM, AND GLASGOW 
BENZIGER BROTHERS : NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO 

I9I4 

[Ai^ rights reserved] 



9 8-4(b0 









CONTENTS 



TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENTS 

QUESTION PAGE 

\^ LX. WHAT IS A SACRAMENT ? - - - - I 

.C^XI. OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS - - 20 
, EXII. OF THE PRINCIPAL SACRAMENTAL EFFECT, WHICH IS 

GRACE - - - - - - 29 

^-LXIII. OF THE OTHER SACRAMENTAL EFFECT, WHICH IS A 

CHARACTER - - - - - 44 

LXIV. OF THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS - " 5^ 

LXV. OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS - - 80 

LXVI. OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM - - - gz 

LXVII. OF THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM - - - I24 

LXVIII. OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM - - - I40 

LXIX. OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM _ - - 166 

LXX. OF CIRCUMCISION - - - - - 1 86 

LXXI. OF CATECHISM AND EXORCISM - - - I97 

LXXII. OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION - - 206 

LXXIII. OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST - - 232 

LXXIV. OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT - - 245 

>!^ LXXV. OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY 

AND BLOOD OF CHRIST - - - - 262 

•*V, LXXVI. HOW CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT- - - 285 
LXXVII. OF THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS SACRA- 
MENT ------ 305 

LXXVIII. OF THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT - - - 328 

"^ LXXIX. OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT - - 349 

"*>. LXXX. OF THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT IN GENERAL - 367 
LXXXI. OF THE USE WHICH CHRIST MADE OF THIS SACRAMENT 

AT ITS INSTITUTION _ - - - 403 

LXXXII. OF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT - - 4I2 

LXXXIII. OF THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT - - - 433 



TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENTS 



THE "SUMMA THEOLOGICA" 



THIRD PART. 

QUESTION LX. 

WHAT IS A SACRAMENT ? 

{In Eight Articles.) 

After considering those things that concern the mystery 
of the incarnate Word, we must consider the sacraments 
of the Church which derive their efficacy from the Word 
incarnate Himself. First we shall consider the sacraments 
in general; secondly, we shall consider specially each 
sacrament. 

Concerning the first our consideration will be fivefold: 
(i) What is a sacrament ? (2) Of the necessity of the 
sacraments. (3) Of the effects of the sacraments. (4) Of 
their cause. (5) Of their number. 

Under the first heading there are eight points of inquiry : 
(i) Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign ? (2) Whether 
every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament ? (3) Whether 
a sacrament is a sign of one thing only, or of several ? (4) 
Whether a sacrament is a sign that is something sensible ? 
(5) Whether some determinate sensible thing is required for 
a sacrament ? (6) Whether signification expressed by words 
is necessary for a sacrament ? (7) Whether determinate 
words are required ? (8) Whether anything may be added 
to or subtracted from these words ? 

TTI. 3 I 



2 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 60. Art. i 

First Article, 
whether a sacrament is a kind of sign ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that a sacrament is not a kind of 
sign. For sacrament appears to be derived from sacring 
(sacrando); just as medicsinient, irom medicando {healing). 
But this seems to be of the nature of a cause rather than 
of a sign. Therefore a sacrament is a kind of cause rather 
than a kind of sign. 

Obj. 2. Further, sacrament seems to signify something 
hidden, according to Tob. xii. 7: It is good to hide the secret 
(sacramentum) of a king; and Ephes. iii. 9: What is the 
dispensation of the mystery (sacramenti) which hath been 
hidden from eternity in God. But that which is hidden, 
seems foreign to the nature of a sign; for a sign is that which 
conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which 
it impresses on the senses, as Augustine explains (De Doctr. 
Christ, ii.). Therefore it seems that a sacrament is not 
a kind of sign. 

Obj. 3. Further, an oath is sometimes called a sacrament: 
for it is written in the Decretals (caus. xxii., qu.^)\ Children 
who have not attained the use of reason must not be obliged 
to swear : and whoever has foresworn himself once, must no 
more be a witness, nor be allowed to take a sacrament — i.e., 
an oath. But an oath is not a kind of sign, therefore it 
seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign. 

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x.) : The 
visible sacrifice is the sacrament, i.e. the sacred sign, of the 
invisible sacrifice. 

I answer that, All things that are ordained to one, even in 
different ways, can be denominated from it : thus, from health 
which is in an animal, not only is the animal said to be healthy 
through being the subject of health: but medicine also is 
said to be healthy through producing health; diet through 
preserving it; and urine, through being a sign of health. 
Consequently, a thing may be called a sacrament, either from 
having a certain hidden sanctity, and in this sense a sacra- 



WHAT IS A SACRAMENT ? 3 

ment is a sacred secret; or from having some relationship 
to this sanctity, which relationship may be that of a cause, 
or of a sign or of any other relation. But now we are 
speaking of sacraments in a special sense, as implying the 
habitude of sign : and in this way a sacrament is a kind of sign. 

Reply Ohj. i. Because medicine is an efhcient cause of 
health, consequently whatever things are denominated 
from medicine are to be referred to some first active cause : 
so that a medicament imphes a certain causality. But 
sanctity from which a sacrament is denominated, is not 
there taken as an efficient cause, but rather as a formal 
or a final cause. Therefore it does not follow that a sacra- 
ment need always imply causality. 

Reply Ohj. 2. This argument considers sacrament in the 
sense of a sacred secret. Now not only God's, but also the 
king's, secret, is said to be sacred and to be a sacrament : 
because according to the ancients, whatever it was un- 
lawful to lay violent hands on was said to be holy or sacro- 
sanct, such as the city walls, and persons of high rank. 
Consequently those secrets, whether Divine or human, 
which it is unlawful to violate by making them known to 
anybody whatever, are called sacred secrets or sacraments. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Even an oath has a certain relation to 
sacred things, in so far as it consists in calling a sacred 
thing to witness. And in this sense it is called a sacrament : 
not in the sense in which we speak of sacraments now; 
the word sacrament being thus used not equivocally but 
analogically — i.e., by reason of a different relation to the 
one thing — viz., something sacred. 

Second Article. 

whether every sign of a holy thing is a 
sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Ohjection i. It seems that not every sign of a sacred 
thing is a sacrament. For all sensible creatures are signs 
of sacred things; according to Rom. i. 20: The invisihle 



4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 60. Art. 2 

things of God are clearly seen being understood by the things 
that are made. And yet all sensible things cannot be called 
sacraments. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing 
is a sacrament. 

Obj. 2. Further, whatever was done under the Old Law 
was a figure of Christ Who is the Holy of Holies (Dan. ix. 24), 
according to i Cor. x. 11: All (these) things happened to 
them in figure ; and Col. ii. 17: Which are a shadow of things 
to come, but the body is Christ's. And yet not all that was 
done by the Fathers of the Old Testament, not even all the 
ceremonies of the Law, were sacraments, but only in certain 
special cases, as stated in the Second Part (L-IL, Q. CL, 
A. 4). Therefore it seems that not every sign of a sacred 
thing is a sacrament. 

Obj. 3. Further, even in the New Testament many things 
are done in sign of some sacred thing; yet they are not 
called sacraments; such as sprinkling with holy water, the 
consecration of an altar, and suchlike. Therefore not 
every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament. 

On the contrary, A definition is convertible with the thing 
defined. Now some define a sacrament as being the sign 
of a sacred thing ; moreover, this is clear from the passage 
quoted above (A. i) from Augustine. Therefore it seems 
that every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament, 

I answer that, Signs are given to men, to whom it is proper 
to discover the unknown by means of the known. Conse- 
quently a sacrament properly so called is that which is the 
sign of some sacred thing pertaining to man ; so that properly 
speaking a sacrament, as considered by us now, is defined 
as being the sign of a holy thing so far as it makes men holy. 

Reply Obj. i. Sensible creatures signify something holy — 
viz., Divine wisdom and goodness inasmuch as these are 
holy in themselves ; but not inasmuch as we are made holy 
by them. Therefore they cannot be called sacraments 
as we understand sacraments now. 

Reply Obj. 2. Some things pertaining to the Old Testa- 
ment signified the holiness of Christ considered as holy in 
Himself, Others signified His holiness considered as the 



WHAT IS A SACRAMENT ? 5 

cause of our holiness ; thus the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb 
signified Christ's Sacrifice whereby we are made holy: and 
suchlike are properly styled sacraments of the Old Law. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Names are given to things considered in 
reference to their end and state of completeness. Now 
a disposition is not an end, whereas perfection is. Conse- 
quently things that signify disposition to holiness are not 
called sacraments, and with regard to these the objection 
is verified: only those are called sacraments which signify 
the perfection of holiness in man. 

Third Article, 
whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that a sacrament is a sign of one 
thing only. For that which signifies many things is an 
ambiguous sign, and consequently occasions deception: 
this is clearly seen in equivocal words. But all deception 
should be removed from the Christian religion, according to 
Col. ii. 8: Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy 
and vain deceit. Therefore it seems that a sacrament is not 
a sign of several things. 

Obj. 2. Further, as stated above (A. 2), a sacrament 
signifies a holy thing in so far as it makes man holy. But 
there is only one cause of man's holiness, viz., the blood of 
Christ ; according to Heb. xiii. 12 : Jesus, that He might sanctify 
the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate. There- 
fore it seems that a sacrament does not signify several things. 

Obj. 3. Further, it has been said above (A. 2 ad 3) that 
a sacrament signifies properly the very end of sanctification. 
Now the end of sanctification is eternal life, according to 
Rom. vi. 22: You have your fruit unto sanctification, and 
the end life everlasting. Therefore it seems that the sacra- 
ments signify one thing only — viz., eternal life. 

On the contrary, In the Sacrament of the Altar, two things 
are signified, viz., Christ's true body, and Christ's mystical 
body; as Augustine says (Liber Sent. Prosper.). 



6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 60. Art. 3 

/ answer that, As stated above (A. 2) a sacrament properly 
speaking is that which is ordained to signify our sanctifica- 
tion. In which three things may be considered; viz., the 
very cause of our sanctification, which is Christ's passion; 
the form of our sanctification, which is grace and the 
virtues; and the ultimate end of our sanctification, which 
is eternal life. And all these are signified by the sacraments. 
Consequently a sacrament is a sign that is both a reminder 
of the past, i.e., the passion of Christ; and an indication of 
that which is effected in us by Christ's passion, i.e., grace; 
and a prognostic, that is, a foretelling of future glory. 

Reply Obj. i. Then is a sign ambiguous and the occasion 
of deception, when it signifies many things not ordained 
to one another. But when it signifies many things in- 
asmuch as, through being mutually ordained, they form one 
thing, then the sign is not ambiguous but certain: thus this 
word man signifies the soul and body inasmuch as together 
they form the human nature. In this way a sacrament 
signifies the three things aforesaid, inasmuch as by being 
in a certain order they are one thing. 

Reply Obj. 2. Since a sacrament signifies that which 
sanctifies, it must needs signify the effect, which is implied 
in the sanctifying cause as such. 

Reply Obj. 3. It is enough for a sacrament that it signify 
that perfection which consists in the form, nor is it necessary 
that it should signify only that perfection which is the end. 

Fourth Article 

whether a sacrament is always something 

sensible ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that a sacrament is not always 
something sensible. Because, according to the Philosopher 
(Prior. Anal, ii.), every effect is a sign of its cause. But 
just as there are some sensible effects, so are there some 
intelligible effects ; thus science is the effect of a demonstra- 
tion. Therefore not every sign is sensible. Now all that 



WHAT IS A SACRAMENT ? 7 

is required for a sacrament is something that is a sign of 
some sacred thing, inasmuch as thereby man is sanctified, 
as stated above (A. 2). Therefore something sensible is 
not required for a sacrament. 

Obj. 2. Further, sacraments belong to the kingdom of 
God and the Divine worship. But sensible things do not 
seem to belong to the Divine worship: for we are told 
(John iv. 24) that God is a spirit ; and they that adore Him, 
must adore Him in spirit and in truth ; and (Rom. xiv. 17) 
that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink. Therefore 
sensible things are not required for the sacraments. 

Ohj. 3. Further, Augustine says {De Lib. Arb. ii.) that 
sensible things are goods of least account, since without them 
man can live aright. But the sacraments are necessary 
for man's salvation, as we shall show farther on (Q. LXL, 
A. i) : so that man cannot live aright without them. There- 
fore sensible things are not required for the sacraments. 

On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. Ixxx. sup. Joan.): 
The word is added to the element and this becomes a sacrament ; 
and he is speaking there of water which is a sensible element. 
Therefore sensible things are required for the sacraments. 

/ answer that. Divine wisdom provides for each thing 
according to its mode; hence it is written (Wisd. viii. i) 
that she ... ordereth all things sweetly : wherefore also we 
are told (Matth. xxv. 15) that she gave to everyone according 
to his proper ability. Now it is part of man's nature to 
acquire knowledge of the intelligible from the sensible. 
But a sign is that by means of which one attains to the 
knowledge of something else. Consequently, since the 
sacred things which are signified by the sacraments, are 
the spiritual and intelligible goods by means of which man 
is sanctified, it follows that the sacramental signs consist 
in sensible things : just as in the Divine Scriptures spiritual 
things are set before us under the guise of things sensible. 
And hence it is that sensible things are required for the 
sacraments; as Dionysius also proves in his book on the 
heavenly hierarchy (Ccel. Hier. i.). 

Reply Obj. i. The name and definition of a thing is 



8 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 60. Art. 4 

taken principally from that which belongs to a thing 
primarily and essentially : and not from that which belongs 
to it through something else. Now a sensible effect being 
the primary and direct object of man's knowledge (since 
all our knowledge springs from the senses) by its very nature 
leads to the knowledge of something else : whereas intelligible 
effects are not such as to be able to lead us to the knowledge 
of something else, except in so far as they are manifested 
by some other thing, i.e., by certain sensibles. It is for 
this reason that the name sign is given primarily and 
principally to things which are offered to the senses ; hence 
Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ, ii.) that a sign is that 
which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species 
which it impresses on the senses. But intelligible effects 
do not partake of the nature of a sign except in so far as 
they are pointed out by certain signs. And in this way, 
too, certain things which are not sensible are termed 
sacraments as it were, in so far as they are signified by 
certain sensible things, of which we shall treat further on 
(Q. LXIIL, A. 1. ad 2\ K. z ad 2\ Q. LXXIIL, A. 6; 
Q. LXXXIV., A. J. adz)- 

Reply Ohj. 2. Sensible things considered in their own 
nature do not belong to the worship or kingdom of God: 
but considered only as signs of spiritual things in which 
the kingdom of God consists. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Augustine speaks there of sensible things, 
considered in their nature; but not as employed to signify 
spiritual things, which are the highest goods. 

Fifth Article. 

whether determinate things are required for a 

sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection, i. It seems that determinate things are not 
required for a sacrament. For sensible things are required 
in sacraments for the purpose of signification, as stated 
above (A. 4). But nothing hinders the same thing being 



WHAT IS A SACRAMENT ? 9 

signified by divers sensible things: thus in Holy Scripture 
God is signified metaphorically, sometimes by a stone 
(2 Kings xxii. 2, Zach. iii. 9, i Cor. x. 4, Apoc. iv. 3); some- 
times by a lion (Isa. xxxi. 4, Apoc. v. 5); sometimes by the 
sun (Isa. Ix. 19, 20; Malach. iv. 2), or by something similar. 
Therefore it seems that divers things can be suitable to the 
same sacrament. Therefore determinate things are not 
required for the sacraments. 

Obj. 2. Further, the health of the soul is more necessary 
than that of the body. But in bodily medicines, which are 
ordained to the health of the body, one thing can be sub- 
stituted for another which happens to be wanting. There- 
fore much more in the sacraments, which are spiritual 
remedies ordained to the health of the soul, can one thing 
be substituted for another when this happens to be lacking. 

Obj. 3. Further, it is not fitting that the salvation of men 
be restricted by the Divine Law: still less by the Law of 
Christ, Who came to save all. But in the state of the Law 
of nature determinate things were not required in the sacra- 
ments, but were put' to that use through a vow, as appears 
from Gen. xxviii. where Jacob vowed that he would offer 
to God tithes and peace-offerings. Therefore it seems that 
man should not have been restricted, especially under the New 
Law, to the use of any determinate thing in the sacraments. 

On the contrary, Our Lord said (John iii. v.) ; Unless a man 
be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God. 

I answer that, In the use of the sacraments two things 
may be considered, namely, the worship of God, and the 
sanctification of man: the former of which pertains to 
man as referred to God, and the latter pertains to God in 
reference to man. Now it is not for anyone to determine 
that which is in the power of another, but only that which 
is in his own power. Since, therefore, the sanctification of 
man is in the power of God Who sanctifies, it is not for 
man to decide what things should be used for his sanctifica- 
tion, but this should be determined by Divine institution. 
Therefore in the sacraments of the New Law, by which 



lo THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 60. Art. 5 

man is sanctified according to i Cor. vi. 11, You are washed, 
you are sanctified, we must use those things which are deter- 
mined by Divine institution. 

Reply Ohj. i. Though the same thing can be signified by 
divers signs, yet to determine which sign must be used 
belongs to the signifier. Now it is God Who signifies spiritual 
things to us by means of the sensible things in the sacra- 
ments, and of simihtudes in the Scriptures. And conse- 
quently, just as the Holy Ghost decides by what similitudes 
spiritual things are to be signified in certain passages of 
Scripture, so also must it be determined by Divine institu- 
tion what things are to be employed for the purpose of 
signification in this or that sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Sensible things are endowed with natural 
powers conducive to the health of the body: and therefore 
if two of them have the same virtue, it matters not 
which we use. Yet they are ordained unto sanctification 
not through any power that they possess naturally, but 
only in virtue of the Divine institution. And therefore 
it was necessary that God should determine the sensible 
things to be employed in the sacraments. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As Augustine says (Contra Faust, xix.), 
diverse sacraments suit different times; just as different 
times are signified by different parts of the verb, viz., present, 
past, and future. Consequently, just as under the state of 
the Law of nature man was moved by inward instinct and 
without any outward law, to worship God, so also the 
sensible things to be employed in the worship of God were 
determined by inward instinct. But later on it became 
necessary for a law to be given (to man) from without: 
both because the Law of nature had become obscured by 
man's sins ; and in order to signify more expressly the grace 
of Christ, by which the human race is sanctified. And hence 
the need for those things to be determinate, of which men 
have to make use in the sacraments. Nor is the way of 
salvation narrowed thereby : because the things which need 
to be used in the sacraments, are either in everyone's 
possession or can be had with little trouble. 



WHAT IS A SACRAMENT ? ii 

Sixth Article. 

whether words are required for the signification 
of the sacraments ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that words are not required for 
the signification of the sacraments. For Augustine says 
(Contra Faust, xix.) : What else is a corporal sacrament hut 
a kind of visible word ? Wherefore to add words to the 
sensible things in the sacraments seems to be the same as 
to add words to words. But this is superfluous. Therefore 
words are not required besides the sensible things in the 
sacraments. 

Obj. 2. Further, a sacrament is some one thing. But it 
does not seem possible to make one thing of those that 
belong to different genera. Since, therefore, sensible things 
and words are of different genera, for sensible things are 
the product of nature, but words, of reason; it seems that 
in the sacraments, words are not required besides sensible 
things . 

Obj. 3. Further, the sacraments of the New Law succeed 
those of the Old Law : since the former were instituted when 
the latter were abolished, as Augustine says [Contra Faust. 
xix.). But no form of words was required in the sacraments 
of the Old Law. Therefore neither is it required in those 
of the New Law. 

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. v. 25, 26) : 
Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it ; 
that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water 
in the word of life. And Augustine says (Tract, xxx. in 
Joan): The word is added to the element, and this becomes a 
sacrament. 

I answer that, The sacraments, as stated above (AA. 2, 3), 
are employed as signs for man's sanctification. Conse- 
quently they can be considered in three ways : and in each 
way it is fitting for words to be added to the sensible signs. 
For in the first place they can be considered in regard to 
the cause of sanctification, which is the Word incarnate: 



12 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 60. Art. 6 

to Whom the sacraments have a certain conformity, in 
that the word is joined to the sensible sign, just as in the 
mystery of the Incarnation the Word of God is united to 
sensible flesh. 

Secondly, sacraments may be considered on the part of 
man who is sanctified, and who is composed of soul and 
body: to whom the sacramental remedy is adjusted, since 
it touches the body through the sensible element, and the soul 
through faith in the words. Hence Augustine says (Tract. 
Ixxx. in Joan.) on John xv. 3, Now you are clean by reason 
of the word, etc.: Whence hath water this so great virtue, to 
touch the body and wash the heart, but by the word doing it, 
not because it is spoken, but because it is believed ? 

Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of 
the sacramental signification. Now Augustine says [De 
Doctr. Christ, ii.) that words are the principal signs used by 
men ; because words can be formed in various ways for the 
purpose of signifying various mental concepts, so that we 
are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness 
by means of words. And therefore in order to insure the 
perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary to 
determine the signification of the sensible things by means 
of certain words. For water may signify both a cleansing 
by reason of its humidity, and refreshment by reason of 
its being cool: but when we say, / baptize thee, it is clear 
that we use water in baptism in order to signify a spiritual 
cleansing. 

Reply Ob], i. The sensible elements of the sacraments are 
called words by way of a certain likeness, in so far as they 
partake of a certain significative power, which resides 
principally in the very words, as stated above. Conse- 
quently it is not a superfluous repetition to add words to 
the visible element in the sacraments; because one deter- 
mines the other, as stated above. 

Reply Ob]. 2. Although words and other sensible things 
are not in the same genus, considered in their natures, yet 
have they something in common as to the thing signified 
by them : which is more perfectly done in words than in other 



WHAT IS A SACRAMENT ? 13 

things. Wherefore in the sacraments, words and things, 
Hke form and matter, combine in the formation of one 
thing, in so far as the signification of things is completed 
by means of words, as above stated. And under words 
are comprised also sensible actions, such as cleansing and 
anointing and suchlike : because they have a like signification 
with the things. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As Augustine says [Contra Faust, xix.), the 
sacraments of things present should be different from 
sacraments of things to come. Now the sacraments of the 
Old Law foretold the coming of Christ. Consequently 
they did not signify Christ so clearly as the sacraments of 
the New Law, which flow from Christ Himself, and have 
a certain likeness to Him, as stated above.- — Nevertheless 
in the Old Law, certain words were used in things pertaining 
to the worship of God, both by the priests, who were the 
ministers of those sacraments, according to Num. vi. 23, 24: 
Thus shall you bless the children of Israel, and you shall say 
to them: The Lord bless thee, etc.; and by those who made 
use of those sacraments, according to Deut. xxvi. 3: / 
frofess this day before the Lord thy God, etc. 

Seventh Article. 

whether determinate words are required in the 

sacraments ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh A rticle : — 

Objection i. It seems that determinate words are not 
required in the sacraments. For as the Philosopher says 
(Peri Herm. i.), words are not the same for all. But salva- 
tion, which is sought through the sacraments, is the same 
for all. Therefore determinate words are not required in 
the sacraments. 

Obj. 2. Further, words are required in the sacraments 
forasmuch as they are the principal means of signification, 
as stated above (A. 6). But it happens that various words 
mean the same. Therefore determinate words are not 
required in the sacraments. 



i4 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '' Q. 60. Art. 7 

Obj. 3. Further, corruption of anything changes its 
species. But some corrupt the pronunciation of words, 
and yet it is not credible that the sacramental effect is 
hindered thereby; else unlettered men and stammerers, 
in conferring sacraments, would frequently do so invalidly. 
Therefore it seems that determinate words are not required 
in the sacraments. 

On the contrary, Our Lord used determinate words in 
consecrating the sacrament of the Eucharist, when He 
said (Matth. xxvi. 26): This is My Body. Likewise He 
commanded His disciples to baptize under a form of deter- 
minate words, saying (Matt, xxviii. 19): Go ye and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 

I answer that. As stated above (A. 6 ad 2), in the sacra- 
ments the words are as the form, and sensible things are 
as the matter. Now in all things composed of matter and 
form, the determining principle is on the part of the form, 
which is as it were the end and terminus of the matter. 
Consequently for the being of a thing the need of a deter- 
minate form is prior to the need of determinate matter: 
for determinate matter is needed that it may be adapted 
to the determinate form. Since, therefore, in the sacraments 
determinate sensible things are required, which are as the 
sacramental matter, much more is there need in them of 
a determinate form of words. 

Reply Obj. i. As Augustine says (Tract. Ixxx. sup. Joan.), 
the word operates in the sacraments not because it is spoken, 
i.e., not by the outward sound of the voice, but because it is 
believed in accordance with the sense of the words which 
is held by faith. And this sense is indeed the same for all, 
though the same words as to their sound be not used by 
all. Consequently no matter in what language this sense 
is expressed, the sacrament is complete. 

Reply Obj. 2. Although it happens in every language that 
various words signify the same thing, yet one of those words 
is that which those who speak that language use principally 
and more commonly to signify that particular thing: and 



WHAT IS A SACRAMENT ? 15 

this is the word which should be used for the sacramental 
signification. So also among sensible things, that one is 
used for the sacramental signification which is most com- 
monly employed for the action by which the sacramental 
effect is signified : thus water is most commonly used by men 
for bodily cleansing, by which the spiritual cleansing is signi- 
fied : and therefore water is employed as the matter of baptism. 

Reply Ohj . 3. If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the 
sacramental words — does so on purpose, he does not seem 
to intend to do what the Church intends: and thus the 
sacrament seems to be defective. But if he do this through 
error or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far mispronounce 
the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament seems 
to be defective. This would be the case especially if the 
mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, 
if one were to say in nomine matris instead of in nomine 
Patris. If, however, the sense of the words be not entirely 
lost by this mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. 
This would be the case principally if the end of a word be 
mispronounced; for instance, if one were to say patrias 
et filias. For although the words thus mispronounced have 
no appointed meaning, yet we allow them an accommodated 
meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And 
so, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense 
remains the same. 

What has been said about the various mispronunciations 
of words, either at the beginning or at the end, holds for- 
asmuch as with us a change at the beginning of a word 
changes the meaning, whereas a change at the end generally 
speaking does not effect such a change: whereas with the 
Greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of words 
in the conjugation of verbs. 

Nevertheless the principle point to observe is the extent 
of the corruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in 
either case it may be so little that it does not alter the sense 
of the words; or so great that it destroys it. But it is 
easier for the one to happen on the part of the beginning of 
the words, and the other at the end. 



i6 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA '* Q. 60. Art. 8 

Eighth Article. 

whether it is lawful to add anything to the words 
in which the sacramental form consists ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that it is not lawful to add any- 
thing to the words in which the sacramental form consists. 
For these sacramental words are not of less importance than 
are the words of Holy Scripture. But it is not lawful to 
add anything to, or to take anything from, the words of 
Holy Scripture: for it is written (Deut. iv. 2): You shall 
not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take 
away from it ; and (Apoc. xxii. 18, 19) : / testify to everyone 
that heareth the words of the prophecy of this hook : if any 
man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues 
written in this hook. And if any man shall take away . . . God 
shall take away his part out of the hook of life. Therefore 
it seems that neither is it lawful to add anything to, or to 
take anything from, the sacramental forms. 

Ohj. 2. Further, in the sacraments words are by way of 
form, as stated above (A. 6 ad 2; A. 7). But any addition 
or subtraction in forms changes the species, as also in 
numbers (Metaph. viii.). Therefore it seems that if any- 
thing be added to or subtracted from a sacramental form, 
it will not be the same sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, just as the sacramental form demands 
a certain number of words, so does it require that these 
words should be pronounced in a certain order and without 
interruption. If therefore, the sacrament is not rendered 
invalid by addition or subtraction of words, in like manner 
it seems that neither is it, if the words be pronounced in 
a different order or with interruptions. 

On the contrary, Certain words are inserted by some in the 
sacramental forms, which are not inserted by others: thus 
the Latins baptize under this form: / haptize thee in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; 
whereas the Greeks use the following form: The servant of 
God, N ... is haptized in the name of the Father, etc. Yet 



WHAT IS A SACRAMENT ? ii 

both confer the sacrament validly. Therefore it is lawful 
to add something to, or to take something from, the sacra- 
mental forms. 

/ answer that, With regard to all the variations that may 
occur in the sacramental forms, two points seem to call 
for our attention. One is on the part of the person who 
says the words, and whose intention is essential to the 
sacrament, as will be explained further on (Q. LXIV., 
A. 8). Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppres- 
sion to perform a rite other from that which is recognized 
by the Church, it seems that the sacrament is invalid: 
because he seems not to intend to do what the Church does. 

The other point to be considered is the meaning of the 
words. For since in the sacraments, the words produce 
an effect according to the sense which they convey, as 
stated above (K. j ad i), we must see whether the change 
of words destroys the essential sense of the words : because 
then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it 
is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form 
be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is 
destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid. 
Wherefore Didymus says {De Spiv. Sanct. ii.): // anyone 
attempt to baptize in such a way as to omit one of the aforesaid 
names, i.e., of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, his baptism 
will be invalid. But if that which is omitted be not a sub- 
stantial part of the form, such an omission does not destroy 
the essential sense of the words, nor consequently the 
validity of the sacrament. Thus in the form of the Eucharist, 
— For this is My Body, the omission of the word for does 
not destroy the essential sense of the words, nor consequently 
cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he 
who makes the omission may sin from negligence or con- 
tempt. 

Again, it is possible to add something that destroys the 
essential sense of the words: for instance, if one were to 
say : I baptize thee in the name of the Father Who is greater, 
and of the Son Who is less, with which form the Arians 
baptized: and consequently such an addition makes the 

III. ^ 2 



i8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 60. Art. 8 

sacrament invalid. But if the addition be such as not to 
destroy the essential sense, the sacrament is not rendered 
invalid. Nor does it matter whether this addition be 
made at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end: For 
instance, if one were to say, I baptize thee in the name of the 
Father Almighty, and of the Only Begotten Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the baptism would be valid; and 
in like manner if one were to say, / baptize thee in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and 
may the Blessed Virgin succour thee, the baptism would be 
valid. 

Perhaps, however, if one were to say, / baptize thee in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the baptism would be void ; 
because it is written (i Cor. i. 13): Was Paul crucified for 
you or were you baptized in the name of Paul ? But this is 
true if the intention be to baptize in the name of the Blessed 
Virgin as in the name of the Trinity, by which baptism is 
consecrated : for such a sense would be contrary to faith, and 
would therefore render the sacrament invalid: whereas if 
the addition, and in the name of the Blessed Virgin be under- 
stood, not as if the name of the Blessed Virgin effected 
anything in baptism, but as intimating that her intercession 
may help the person baptized to preserve the baptismal 
grace, then the sacrament is not rendered void. 

Reply Obj. i. It is not lawful to add anything to the 
words of Holy Scripture as regards the sense; but many 
words are added by Doctors by way of explanation of the 
Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, it is not lawful to add 
even words to Holy Scripture as though such words were 
a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery. It would 
amount to the same if anyone were to pretend that some- 
thing is essential to a sacramental form, which is not so. 

Reply Obj. 2. Words belong to a sacramental form by 
reason of the sense signified by them. Consequently any 
addition or suppression of words which does not add to 
or take from the essential sense, does not destroy the essence 
of the sacrament. 



WHAT IS A SACRAMENT ? 19 

Reply Obj. 3. If the words are interrupted to such an 
extent that the intention of the speaker is interrupted, 
the sacramental sense is destroyed, and consequently, the 
validity of the sacrament. But this is not the case if the 
interruption of the speaker is so slight, that his intention 
and the sense of the words is not interrupted. 

The same is to be said of a change in the order of the 
words. Because if this destroys the sense of the words, the 
sacrament is invalidated: as happens when a negation is 
made to precede or follow a word. But if the order is so 
changed that the sense of the words does not vary, the 
sacrament is not invalidated, according to the Philosopher's 
dictum : Nouns and verbs mean the same though they be trans- 
posed (Peri Herm. x.). 



QUESTION LXI. 

OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS. 
{In Four Articles.) 

We must now consider the necessity of the sacraments; 
concerning which there are four points of inquiry: 
(i) Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation ? 
(2) Whether they were necessary in the state that preceded 
sin ? (3) Whether they were necessary in the state after 
sin and before Christ ? (4) Whether they were necessary 
after Christ's coming ? 

First Article. 

whether sacraments are necessary for man's 

salvation ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that sacraments are not necessary 
for man's salvation. For the Apostle says (i Tim. iv. 8): 
Bodily exercise is profitable to little. But the use of sacra- 
ments pertains to bodily exercise; because sacraments are 
perfected in the signification of sensible things and words, 
as stated above (Q. LX., A. 6). Therefore sacraments are 
not necessary for the salvation of man. 

Obj. 2. Further, the Apostle was told (2 Cor. xii, 9): 
My grace is sufficient for thee. But it would not suffice if 
sacraments were necessary for salvation. Therefore sacra- 
ments are not necessary for man's salvation. 

Obj. 3. Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more 
seems to be required for the effect. But Christ's Passion 
is the sufficient cause of our salvation; for the Apostle says 

20 



OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS 21 

(Rom. V. 10): If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to 
God hy the death of His Son : much more, being reconciled, 
shall we he saved hy Bis life. Therefore sacraments are not 
necessary for man's salvation. 

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust, xix.) : It 
is impossible to keep men together in one religious denomina- 
tion, whether true or false, except they be united hy means of 
visible signs or sacraments. But it is necessary for salvation 
that men be united together in the name of the one true 
religion. Therefore sacraments are necessary for man's 
salvation. 

/ answer that, Sacraments are necessary unto man's 
salvation for three reasons. The first is taken from the 
condition of human nature which is such that it has to be 
led by things corporeal and sensible to things spiritual and 
intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine providence to pro- 
vide for each one according as its condition requires. 
Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with 
means of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible 
signs that are called sacraments. 

The second reason is taken from the state of man who 
in sinning subjected himself by his affections to corporeal 
things . Now the healing remedy should be given to a man 
so as to reach the part affected by disease. Consequently 
it was fitting that God should provide man with a spiritual 
medicine by means of certain corporeal signs; for if man 
were offered spiritual things without a veil, his mind being 
taken up with the material world would be unable to 
apply itself to them. 

The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone 
to direct his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, 
therefore, it should be too hard for man to be drawn away 
entirely from bodily actions, bodily exercise was offered 
to him in the sacraments, by which he might be trained 
to avoid superstitious practices, consisting in the worship 
of demons, and all manner of harmful action, consisting 
in sinful deeds. 

It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the 



22 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 6i. Art. i 

sacraments man, consistently with his nature, is instructed 
through sensible things ; he is humbled, through confessing 
that he is subject to corporeal things, seeing that he receives 
assistance through them: and he is even preserved from 
bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of the sacraments. 

Reply Ohj. i. Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profit- 
able: but exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not 
merely bodily, but to a certain extent spiritual, viz., in its 
signification and in its causality. 

Reply Ohj. 2. God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's 
salvation. But God gives grace to man in a way which is 
suitable to him. Hence it is that man needs the sacra- 
ments that he may obtain grace. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of 
man's salvation. But it does not follow that the sacra- 
ments are not also necessary for that purpose : because they 
obtain their effect through the power of Christ's Passion; 
and Christ's Passion is, so to say, applied to man through 
the sacraments according to the Apostle (Rom. vi. 3): 
All we who are haptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His 
death. 

Second Article, 
whether before sin sacraments were necessary 

TO MAN ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that before sin sacraments were 
necessary to man. For, as stated above (A. i ad 2) man 
needs sacraments that he may obtain grace. But man 
needed grace even in the state of innocence, as we stated 
in the First Part (Q. XCV., A. 4; cf. I.-H., Q. CIX., A. 2; 
Q. CXI v., A. 2). Therefore sacraments were necessary in 
that state also. 

Obj. 2. Further, sacraments are suitable to man by reason 
of the conditions of human nature, as stated above (A. i). 
But man's nature is the same before and after sin. There- 
fore it seems that before sin, man needed the sacraments. 

Obj. 3. Further, matrimony is a sacrament, according to 



OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS 23 

Eph. V. 32: This is a great sacrament ; hut I speak in Christ 
and in the Church. But matrimony was instituted before 
sin, as may be seen in Gen. ii. Therefore sacraments were 
necessary to man before sin. 

On the contrary, None but the sick need remedies, accord- 
ing to Matth . ix. 12 : They that are in health need not a physician. 
Now the sacraments are spiritual remedies for the heahng 
of wounds inflicted by sin. Therefore they were not 
necessary before sin. 

/ answer that, Sacraments were not necessary in the state 
of innocence. This can be proved from the rectitude of 
that state, in which the higher (parts of man) ruled the 
lower, and nowise depended on them: for just as the mind 
was subject to God, so were the lower powers of the soul 
subject to the mind, and the body to the soul. And it 
would be contrary to this order if the soul were perfected, 
either in knowledge or in grace, by anything corporeal; 
which happens in the sacraments. Therefore in the state 
of innocence man needed no sacraments, whether as 
remedies against sin or as means of perfecting the soul. 

Reply Ohj. i. In the state of innocence man needed grace: 
not so that he needed to obtain grace by means 6i sensible 
signs, but in a spiritual and invisible manner. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Man's nature is the same before and after 
sin, but the state of his nature is not the same. Because 
after sin, the soul, even in its higher part, needs to receive 
something from corporeal things in order that it may be 
perfected: whereas man had no need of this in that state. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Matrimony was instituted in the state of 
innocence, not as a sacrament, but as a function of nature. 
Consequently, however, it foreshadowed something in 
relation to Christ and the Church: just as everything else 
foreshadowed Christ. 



24 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 6i. Art. 3 

Third Article. 

whether there should have been sacraments 
after sin, before christ ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that there should have been no 
sacraments after sin, before Christ. For it has been stated 
that the Passion of Christ is apphed to men through the 
sacraments: so that Christ's Passion is compared to the 
sacraments as cause to effect. But effect does not precede 
cause. Therefore there should have been no sacraments 
before Christ's coming. 

Ohj. 2. Further, sacraments should be suitable to the 
state of the human race, as Augustine declares {Contra 
Faust, xix.). But the state of the human race underwent 
no change after sin until it was repaired by Christ. Neither, 
therefore, should the sacraments have been changed, so 
that besides the sacraments of the natural law, others 
should be instituted in the law of Moses. 

Ohj. 3. Further, the nearer a thing approaches to that 
which is perfect, the more like it should it be. Now the 
perfection of human salvation was accomplished by Christ; 
to Whom the sacraments of the Old Law were nearer than 
those that preceded the Law. Therefore they should have 
borne a greater likeness to the sacraments of Christ. And 
yet the contrary is the case, since it was foretold that the 
priesthood of Christ would be according to the order of 
Melchisedech, and not . . . according to the order of Aaron 
(Heb. vii. 11). Therefore sacraments were unsuitably 
instituted before Christ. 

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust, xix.) that 
the first sacraments which the Law commanded to he solemnized 
and observed were announcements of Christ's future coming. 
But it was necessary for man's salvation that Christ's 
coming should be announced beforehand. Therefore it 
was necessary that some sacraments should be instituted 
before Christ. 

/ answer that, Sacraments are necessary for man's salva- 



OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS 25 

tion, in so far as they are sensible signs of invisible things 
whereby man is made holy. Now after sin no man can be 
made holy save through Christ, Whom God hath proposed to 
he a propitiation, through faith in His blood, to the showing 
of His justice . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier 
of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ (Rom. iii. 25, 26). 
Therefore before Christ's coming there was need for some 
visible signs whereby man might testify to his faith in 
the future coming of a Saviour. And these signs are called 
sacraments. It is therefore clear that some sacraments 
were necessary before Christ's coming. 

Reply Obj. i. Christ's Passion is the final cause of the 
old sacraments : for they were instituted in order to fore- 
shadow it. Now the final cause precedes not in time, but 
in the intention of the agent. Consequently, there is no 
reason against the existence of sacraments before Christ's 
Passion. 

Reply Obj. 2. The state of the human race after sin and 
before Christ can be considered from two points of view. 
First, from that of faith : and thus it was always one and the 
same: since men were made righteous, through faith in the 
future coming of Christ. Secondly, according as sin was more 
or less intense, and knowledge concerning Christ more or less 
explicit. For as time went on sin gained a greater hold on 
man, so much so that it clouded man's reason, the conse- 
quence being that the precepts of the natural law were 
insufficient to make man live aright, and it became necessary 
to have a written code of fixed laws, and together with these 
certain sacraments of faith. For it was necessary, as time 
went on, that the knowledge of faith should be more and 
more unfolded, since, as Gregory says (Horn. vi. in Ezech): 
With the advance of time there was an advance in the know- 
ledge of Divine things. Consequently in the Old Law 
there was also a need for certain fixed sacraments significa- 
tive of man's faith in the future coming of Christ: which 
sacraments are compared to those that preceded the Law, 
as something determinate to that which is indeterminate: 
inasmuch as before the Law it was not laid down precisely 



26 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 6i. Art. 4 

of what sacraments men were to make use: whereas this 
was prescribed by the Law; and this was necessary both 
on account of the overclouding of the natural law, and for 
the clearer signification of faith. 

Reply Obj. 3. The sacrament of Melchisedech which pre- 
ceded the Law is more like the Sacrament of the New Law 
in its matter: in so far as he offered bread and wine (Gen. 
xiv. 18), just as bread and wine are offered in the sacrifice 
of the New Testament. Nevertheless, the sacraments of 
the Mosaic Law are more like the thing signified by the 
sacrament, i.e., the Passion of Christ: as clearly appears 
in the Paschal Lamb and such-like. The reason of this was 
lest, if the sacraments retained the same appearance, it 
might seem to be the continuation of one and the same 
sacrament, where there was no interruption of time. 

Fourth Article. 

whether there was need for any sacraments 
after christ came ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that there was no need for any 
sacraments after Christ came. For the figure should cease 
with the advent of the truth. But grace and truth came by 
Jesus Christ (John i. 17). Since, therefore, the sacraments 
are signs or figures of the truth, it seems that there was no 
need for any sacraments after Christ's Passion. 

Obj. 2. Further, the sacraments consist in certain ele- 
ments, as stated above (Q. LX., A. 4). But the Apostle 
says (Gal. iv. 3, 4) that when we were children we were serving 
under the elements of the world : but that now when the fulness 
of time has come, we are no longer children. Therefore it 
seems that we should not serve God under the elements of 
this world, by making use of corporeal sacraments. 

Obj. 3. Further, according to James i. 17, with God there 
is no change, nor shadow of alteration. But it seems to 
argue some change in the Divine will that God should give 
man certain sacraments for his sanctification now during 



OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS 27 

the ' ime of grace, and other sacraments before Christ's 
comi:ig. Therefore it seems that other sacraments should 
not have been instituted after Christ. 

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Faust, xix.) that 
the f acraments of the Old Law were abolished because they 
were fulfilled ; and others were instituted, fewer in number, 
but More efficacious, more profitable, and of easier accomplish- 
ment, 

I answer that. As the ancient Fathers were saved through 
fait"i in Christ's future coming, so are we saved through 
faith in Christ's past birth and Passion. Now the sacra- 
ments are signs in protestation of the faith whereby man 
is justified; and signs should vary according as they signify 
the future, the past, or the present; for as Augustine says 
{Contra Faust, xix.), the same thing is variously pronounced 
as to be done and as having been done : for instance the word 
' passurus ' (going to suffer) differs from ' passus ' (having 
suffered). Therefore the sacraments of the New Law, 
that signify Christ in relation to the past, must needs 
differ from those of the Old Law, that foreshadowed 
the future. 

Reply Obj. i. As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v.), the state 
of the New Law is between the state of the Old Law, whose 
figures are fulfilled in the New, and the state of glory, in 
which all truth will be openly and perfectly revealed. 
Wherefore then there will be no sacraments. But now, 
so long as we know through a glass in a dark manner, 
(i Cor. xiii. 12) we need sensible signs in order to reach 
spiritual things: and this is the province of the sacra- 
ments. 

Reply Obj. 2. The Apostle calls the sacraments of the 
Old Law weak and needy elements (Gal. iv. 9) because they 
neither contained nor caused grace. Hence the Apostle 
says that those who used these sacraments served God 
under the elements of this world : for the very reason that 
these sacraments were nothing else than the elements of 
this world. But our sacraments both contain and cause 
grace: consequently the comparison does not hold. 



28 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 6i. art. 4 

Reply Obj. 3. Just as the head of the house is not piDved 
to have a changeable mind, through issuing various :om- 
mands to his household at various seasons, ordering tilings 
differently in winter and summer; so it does not follow 
that there is any change in God, because He institited 
sacraments of one kind after Christ's coming, and of another 
kind at the time of the Law ; because the latter were suitable 
as foreshadowing grace ; the former as signifying the presf nee 
of grace. 



QUESTION LXII. 

OF THE SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT, WHICH IS 

GRACE. 

{In Six Articles.) 

We have now to consider the effect of the sacraments. 
First of their principal effect, which is grace; secondly, of 
their secondary effect, which is a character. Concerning 
the first there are six points of inquiry: (i) Whether the 
sacraments of the New Law are the cause of grace ? 
(2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition 
to the grace of the virtues and gifts ? (3) Whether the sacra- 
ments contain grace ? (4) Whether there is any power in 
them for the causing of grace ? (5) Whether the sacra- 
ments derive this power from Christ's Passion ? (6) Whether 
the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace ? 

First Article, 
whether the sacraments are the cause of grace ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the sacraments are not the 
cause of grace. For it seems that the same thing is not 
both sign and cause : since the nature of sign appears to be 
more in keeping with an effect. But a sacrament is a 
sign of grace. Therefore it is not its cause. 

Ohj. 2. Further, nothing corporeal can act on a spiritual 
thing: since the agerit is more excellent than the patient, as 
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii.). But the subject of grace 
is the human mind, which is something spiritual. Therefore 
the sacraments cannot cause grace. 

29 



30 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 62. Art. i 

Ohj. 3. Further, what is proper to God should not be 
ascribed to a creature. But it is proper to God to cause 
grace, according to Ps. Ixxxiii. 12: The Lord will give grace 
and glory. Since, therefore, the sacraments consist in certain 
words and created things, it seems that they cannot cause grace . 

On the contrary, Augustine says (Tract. Ixxx. in Joan.) 
that the baptismal water touches the body and cleanses the 
heart. But the heart is not cleansed save through grace. 
Therefore it causes grace : and for like reason so do the other 
sacraments of the Church. 

/ answer that, We must needs say that in some way the 
sacraments of the New Law cause grace. For it is evident 
that through the sacraments of the New Law man is in- 
corporated with Christ: thus the Apostle says of Baptism 
(Gal. iii. 27) : As many of you as have been baptized in Christ 
have put on Christ. And man is made a member of Christ 
through grace alone. 

Some, however, say that they are the cause of grace not 
by their own operation, but in so far as God causes grace 
in the soul when the sacraments are employed. And they 
give as an example a man who on presenting a leaden coin, 
receives, by the king's command, a hundred pounds: not 
as though the leaden coin, by any operation of its own, 
caused him to be given that sum of money; this being the 
effect of the mere will of the king. Hence Bernard says 
in a sermon on the Lord's Supper: Just as a canon is in- 
vested by means of a book, an abbot by means of a crozier, 
a bishop by means of a ring, so by the various sacraments 
various kinds of grace are conferred. But if we examine the 
question properly, we shall see that according to the above 
mode the sacraments are mere signs. For the leaden coin 
is nothing but a sign of the king's command that this man 
should receive money. In like manner the book is a sign 
of the conferring of a canonry. Hence, according to this 
opinion the sacraments of the New Law would be mere signs 
of grace; whereas we have it on the authority of many 
saints that the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, 
but also cause grace. 



SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT: GRACE 31 

We must therefore say otherwise, that an efficient cause 
is twofold, principal and instrumental. The principal cause 
works by the power of its form, to which form the effect is 
likened; just as fire by its own heat makes something hot. 
In this way none but God can cause grace: since grace is 
nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine 
Nature, according to 2 Pet. i. 4: He hath given us most 
great and precious promises ; that we may he (Vulg., — you 
may he made) partakers of the Divine Nature. — But the in- 
strumental cause works not by the power of its form, but 
only by the motion whereby it is moved by the principal 
agent: so that the effect is not likened to the instrument 
but to the principal agent: for instance, the couch is not 
like the axe, but like the art which is in the craftsman's 
mind. And it is thus that the sacraments of the New Law 
cause grace : for they are instituted by God to be employed 
for the purpose of conferring grace. Hence Augustine says 
(Contra Faust, xix.) : All these things, viz., pertaining to 
the sacraments, are done and pass away, hut the power, viz., 
of God, which works hy them, remains ever. Now that is, 
properly speaking, an instrument by which someone works : 
wherefore it is written (Tit. iii. 5) : He saved us hy the laver 
of regeneration. 

Reply Ohj. i. The principal cause cannot properly be 
called a sign of its effect, even though the latter be hidden 
and the cause itself sensible and manifest. But an instru- 
mental cause, if manifest, can be called a sign of a hidden 
effect, for this reason, that it is not merely a cause but also 
in a measure an effect in so far as it is moved by the principal 
agent. And in this sense the sacraments of the New Law 
are both cause and signs. Hence, too, is it that, to use the 
common expression, they effect what they signify. From 
this it is clear that they perfectly fulfil the conditions of 
a sacrament ; being ordained to something sacred, not only 
as a sign, but also as a cause. 

Reply Ohj. 2. An instrument has a twofold action; one 
is instrumental, in respect of which it works not by its 
own power but by the power of the principal agent : the 



32 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 62. Art. i 

other is its proper action, which belongs to it in respect of 
its proper form: thus it belongs to an axe to cut asunder 
by reason of its sharpness, but to make a couch, in so far 
as it is the instrument of an art. But it does not accom- 
plish the instrumental action save by exercising its proper 
action: for it is by cutting that it makes a couch. In like 
manner the corporeal sacraments by their operation, which 
they exercise on the body that they touch, accomplish 
through the Divine institution an instrumental operation 
on the soul; for example, the water of baptism, in respect 
of its proper power, cleanses the body, and thereby, in- 
asmuch as it is the instrument of the Divine power, cleanses 
the soul : since from soul and body one thing is made. And 
thus it is that Augustine says {loc. cit.) that it touches the 
body and cleanses the heart. 

Reply Ohj. 3. This argument considers that which causes 
grace as principal agent; for this belongs to God alone, as 
stated above. 

Second Article. 

whether sacramental grace confers anything 
in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that sacramental grace confers 
nothing in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. 
For the grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the soul 
sufficiently, both in its essence and in its powers ; as is clear 
from what was said in the Second Part (I.-II., Q. CX., 
AA. 3, 4). But grace is ordained to the perfecting of the 
soul. Therefore sacramental grace cannot confer anything 
in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. 

Obj. 2. Further, the soul's defects are caused by sin. 
But all sins are sufficiently removed by the grace of the 
virtues and gifts : because there is no sin that is not contrary 
to some virtue. Since, therefore, sacramental grace is 
ordained to the removal of the soul's defects, it cannot 
confer anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and 
gifts. 



SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT: GRACE 33 

Obj. 3. Further, every addition or subtraction of form 
varies the species [Metaph. viii.). If, therefore, sacramental 
grace confers anything in addition to the grace of the 
virtues and gifts, it follows that it is called grace equivocally : 
and so we are none the wiser when it is said that the sacra- 
ments cause grace. 

On the contrary, If sacramental grace confers nothing in 
addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it is useless 
to confer the sacraments on those who have the virtues 
and gifts. But there is nothing useless in God's works. 
Therefore it seems that sacramental grace confers something 
in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. 

I answer that, As stated in the Second Part (I. -II., Q. CX., 
AA. 3, 4), grace, considered in itself, perfects the essence 
of the soul, in so far as it is a certain participated likeness 
of the Divine Nature. And just as the soul's powers flow 
from its essence, so from grace there flow certain perfections 
into the powers of the soul, which are called virtues and 
gifts, whereby the powers are perfected in reference to their 
actions. Now the sacraments are ordained unto certain 
special effects which are necessary in the Christian life: 
thus Baptism is ordained unto a certain spiritual regenera- 
tion, by which man dies to vice and becomes a member 
of Christ: which effect is something special in addition to 
the actions of the soul's powers: and the same holds true of 
the other sacraments. Consequently just as the virtues 
and gifts confer, in addition to grace commonly so called, 
a certain special perfection ordained to the powers' proper 
actions, so does sacramental grace confer, over and above 
grace commonly so called, and in addition to the virtues 
and gifts, a certain Divine assistance in obtaining the end 
of the sacrament. It is thus that sacramental grace confers 
something in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. 

Reply Obj. i. The grace of the virtues and gifts perfects 
the essence and powers of the soul sufficiently as regards 
ordinary conduct: but as regards certain special effects 
which are necessary in a Christian life, sacramental grace 
is needed. 

ni. 3 3 



34 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA *' Q. 62. Art. 3 

Reply Ohj. 2. Vices and sins are sufficiently removed by 
virtues and gifts, as to present and future time; in so far 
as they prevent man from sinning. But in regard to past 
sins, the acts of which are transitory whereas their guilt 
remains, man is provided with a special remedy in the 
sacraments. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Sacramental grace is compared to grace 
commonly so called, as species to genus. Wherefore just 
as it is not equivocal to use the term animal in its generic 
sense, and as applied to a man, so neither is it equivocal 
to speak of grace commonly so called and of sacramental 
grace. 

Third Article, 
whether the sacraments of the new law contain 

GRACE ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the sacraments of the New Law 
do not contain grace. For it seems that what is contained 
is in the container. But grace is not in the sacraments; 
neither as in a subject, because the subject of grace is not 
a body but a spirit; nor as in a vessel, for according to 
Phys. iv., a vessel is a movable place, and an accident cannot 
be in a place. Therefore it seems that the sacraments of 
the New Law do not contain grace. 

Obj. 2. Further, sacraments are instituted as means 
whereby men may obtain grace. But since grace is an 
accident it cannot pass from one subject to another. 
Therefore it would be of no account if grace were in the 
sacraments. 

Obj. 3. Further, a spiritual thing is not contained by a 
corporeal, even if it be therein; for the soul is not contained 
by the body; rather does it contain the body. Since, 
therefore, grace is something spiritual, it seems that it 
cannot be contained in a corporeal sacrament. 

On the contrary, Hugh of S. Victor says (De Sacram. i.) 
that a sacrament, through its being sanctified, contains an 
invisible grace. 



SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT: GRACE 35 

/ answer that, A thing is said to be in another in various 
ways; in two of which grace is said to be in the sacraments. 
First, as in its sign; for a sacrament is a sign of grace. — 
Secondly, as in its cause; for, as stated above (A. i) a 
sacrament of the New Law is an instrumental cause of 
grace. Wherefore grace is in a sacrament of the New Law, 
not as to its specific likeness, as an effect in its univocal 
cause; nor as to some proper and permanent form propor- 
tioned to such an effect, as effects in non-univocal causes, 
for instance, as things generated are in the sun; but as to 
a certain instrumental power transient and incomplete 
in its natural being, as will be explained later on (A. 4). 

Reply Ohj. i. Grace is said to be in a sacrament not as 
in its subject; nor as in a vessel considered as a place, but 
understood as the instrument of some work to be done, 
according to Ezech. ix. i: Everyone hath a destroying vessel 
(Douay — weapon) in his hand. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Although an accident does not pass from 
one subject to another, nevertheless in a fashion it does pass 
from its cause into its subject through the instrument; not 
so that it be in each of these in the same way, but in each 
according to its respective nature. 

Reply Ohj. 3. If a spiritual thing exist perfectly in some- 
thing, it contains it and is not contained by it. But, in a 
sacrament, grace has a passing and incomplete mode of 
being: and consequently it is not unfitting to say that the 
sacraments contain grace. 

Fourth Article. 

whether there be in the sacraments a power of 

causing grace ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that there is not in the sacraments 
a power of causing grace. For the power of causing grace 
is a spiritual power. But a spiritual power cannot be in 
a body; neither as proper to it, because power flows from 
a thing's essence and consequently cannot transcend it; 



36 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 62. Art. 4 

nor as derived from something else, because that which is 
received into anything follows the mode of the recipient. 
Therefore in the sacraments there is no power of causing 
grace. 

Obj. 2. Further, whatever exists is reducible to some 
kind of being and some degree of good. But there is no 
assignable kind of being to which such a power can belong ; 
as anyone may see by running through them all. Nor 
is it reducible to some degree of good; for neither is it one 
of the goods of least account, since sacraments are necessary 
for salvation: nor is it an intermediate good, such as are 
the powers of the soul, which are natural powers; nor is it 
one of the greater goods, for it is neither grace nor a virtue 
of the mind. Therefore it seems that in the sacraments 
there is no power of causing grace. 

Obj. 3. Further, if there be such a power in the sacra- 
ments, its presence there must be due to nothing less than 
a creative act of God. But it seems unbecoming that so 
excellent a being created by God should cease to exist as 
soon as the sacrament is complete. Therefore it seems 
that in the sacraments there is no power for causing grace. 

Obj. 4. Further, the same thing cannot be in several. 
But several things concur in the completion of a sacrament, 
namely, words and things: while in one sacrament there 
can be but one power. Therefore it seems that there is 
no power of causing grace in the sacraments. 

On the contrary, x\ugustine says (Tract. Ixxx. in Joan.) : 
Whence hath water so great power, that it touches the body 
and cleanses the heart? And Bede says that Our Lord con- 
ferred a power of regeneration on the waters by the contact of 
His most pure body. 

I answer that. Those who hold that the sacraments do 
not cause grace save by a certain coincidence, deny the 
sacraments any power that is itself productive of the 
sacramental effect, and hold that the Divine power 
assists the sacraments and produces their effect. But if 
we hold that a sacrament is an instrumental cause of grace, 
we must needs allow that there is in the sacraments a 



SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT: GRACE 37 

certain instrumental power of bringing about the sacra- 
mental effects. Now such power is proportionate to the 
instrument : and consequently it stands in comparison to 
the complete and perfect power of anything, as the instru- 
ment to the principal agent. For an instrument, as stated 
above (A. i), does not work save as moved by the principal 
agent, which works of itself. And therefore the power of 
the principal agent exists in nature completely and per- 
fectly: whereas the instrumental power has a being that 
passes from one thing into another, and is incomplete; just 
as motion is an imperfect act passing from agent to patient. 

Reply Ohj. i. A spiritual power cannot be in a cor- 
poreal subject, after the manner of a permanent and com- 
plete power; as the argument proves. But there is nothing 
to hinder an instrumental spiritual power from being in a 
body; in so far as a body can be moved by a particular 
spiritual substance so as to produce a particular spiritual 
effect; thus in the very voice which is perceived by the 
senses there is a certain spiritual power, inasmuch as it 
proceeds from a mental concept, of arousing the mind of 
the hearer. It is in this way that a spiritual power is in 
the sacraments, inasmuch as they are ordained by God 
unto the production of a spiritual effect. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Just as motion, through being an imperfect 
act, is not properly in a genus, but is reducible to a genus 
of perfect act, for instance, alteration to the genus of 
quality : so, instrumental power, properly speaking, is not 
in any genus, but is reducible to a genus and species of 
perfect act. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Just as an instrumental power accrues to 
an instrument through its being moved by the principal 
agent, so does a sacrament receive spiritual power from 
Christ's blessing and from the action of the minister in 
applying it to a sacramental use. Hence Augustine says 
in a sermon on the Epiphany (S. Maximus of Turin, 
Serm. xii.) : Nor should you marvel, if we say that water, a 
corporeal suhstance, achieves the cleansing of the soul. It 
does indeed, and penetrates every secret hiding-place of the 



38 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 62. Art. 5 

conscience. For subtle and clear as it is, the blessing of Christ 
makes it yet more subtle, so that it permeates into the very 
principles of life and searches the innermost recesses of the 
heart. 

Reply Obj. 4. Just as the one same power of the principal 
agent is instrumentally in all the instruments that are 
ordained unto the production of an effect, forasmuch as 
they are one as being so ordained: so also the one same 
sacramental power is in both words and things, forasmuch 
as words and things combine to form one sacrament. 



Fifth Article. 

whether the sacraments of the new law derive 
their power from christ's passion ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the sacraments of the New 
Law do not derive their power from Christ's Passion. For 
the power of the sacraments is in the causing of grace which 
is the principle of spiritual life in the soul. But as Augustine 
says (Tract, xix. in Joan.) : The Word, as He was in the 
beginning with God, quickens souls ; as He was made flesh, 
quickens bodies. Since, therefore, Christ's Passion pertains 
to the Word as made flesh, it seems that it cannot cause the 
power of the sacraments. 

Obj. 2. Further, the power of the sacraments seems to 
depend on faith; for as Augustine says [Tract. Ixxx. in 
Joan), the Divine word perfects the sacrament not because 
it is spoken, but because it is believed. But our faith regards 
not only Christ's Passion, but also the other mysteries of 
His humanity, and in a yet higher measure, His Godhead. 
Therefore it seems that the power of the sacraments is not 
due specially to Christ's Passion. 

Obj. 3. Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's 
justification, according to i Cor. vi. 11: You are washed . . . 
you are justified. Now justification is ascribed to the 
Resurrection, according to Rom. iv. 25: {Who) rose again 
for our justification. Therefore it seems that the sacra- 



SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT: GRACE 39 

ments derive their power from Christ's Resurrection rather 
than from His Passion. 

On the contrary, On Rom. v. 14: After the similitude of the 
transgression of Adam, etc., the gloss says: From the side 
of Christ asleep on the Cross flowed the sacraments which 
brought salvation to the Church. Consequently, it seems 
that the sacraments derive their power from Christ's 
Passion. 

/ answer that. As stated above (A. i) a sacrament in 
causing grace works after the manner of an instrument. 
Now an instrument is twofold; the one, separate, as a stick, 
for instance; the other, united, as a hand. Moreover, the 
separate instrument is moved by means of the united instru- 
ment, as a stick by the hand. Now the principal efficient 
cause of grace is God Himself, in comparison with Whom 
Christ's humanity is as a united instrument, whereas the 
sacrament is as a separate instrument. Consequently, the 
saving power must needs be derived by the sacraments 
from Christ's Godhead through His humanity. 

Now sacramental grace seems to be ordained principally 
to two things : namely, to take away the defects consequent 
on past sins, in so far as they are transitory in act, but 
endure in guilt; and, further, to perfect the soul in things 
pertaining to Divine Worship in regard to the Christian 
Religion. But it is manifest from what has been stated 
above (Q. XLVIIL, AA. i, 2, 6; Q. XLIX., AA. i, 3) that 
Christ delivered us from our sins principally through His 
Passion, not only by way of efficiency and merit, but also 
by way of satisfaction. Likewise by His Passion He in- 
augurated the Rites of the Christian Religion by offering 
Himself — an oblation and a sacrifice to God (Eph. v. 2). 
Wherefore it is manifest that the sacraments of the Church 
derive their power specially from Christ's Passion, the 
virtue of which is in a manner united to us by our receiving 
the sacraments. It was in sign of this that from the side 
of Christ hanging on the Cross there flowed water and blood, 
the former of which belongs to Baptism, the latter to the 
Eucharist, which are the principal sacraments. 



40 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 62. Art. 5 

Reply Ohj. i. The Word, forasmuch as He was in the 
beginning with God, quickens souls as principal agent; but 
His flesh, and the mysteries accomplished therein, are as 
instrumental causes in the process of giving life to the soul : 
while in giving life to the body they act not only as in- 
strumental causes, but also to a certain extent as exemplars, 
as we stated above (Q. LVL, A. \ ad '^). 

Reply Ohj. 2. Christ dwells in us hy faith (Eph. iii. 17). 
Consequently, by faith Christ's power is united to us. Now 
the power of blotting out sin belongs in a special way to His 
Passion. And therefore men are delivered from sin especi- 
ally by faith in His Passion, according to Rom. iii. 25: 
Whom God hath proposed to he a propitiation through faith 
in His Blood. Therefore the power of the sacraments which 
is ordained unto the remission of sins is derived principally 
from faith in Christ's Passion. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Justification is ascribed to the Resurrection 
by reason of the term whither, which is newness of life 
through grace. But it is ascribed to the Passion by reason 
of the term whence, i.e., in regard to the forgiveness of sin. 

Sixth Article, 
whether the sacraments of the old law caused 

GRACE ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the sacraments of the Old Law 
caused grace. For, as stated above (A. 5 ad 2) the sacra- 
ments of the New Law derive their efficacy from faith in 
Christ's Passion. But there was faith in Christ's Passion 
under the Old Law, as well as under the New, since we have 
the same spirit of faith (2 Cor. iv. 13). Therefore just as 
the sacraments of the New Law confer grace, so did the 
sacraments of the Old Law. 

Ohj. 2. Further, there is no sanctification save by grace. 
But men were sanctified by the sacraments of the Old Law: 
for it is written (Lev. viii. 31) : And when he, i.e., Moses, 
had sanctified them, i.e., Aaron and his sons, in their vest- 



SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT: GRACE 41 

ments, etc. Therefore it seems that the sacraments of the 
Old Law conferred grace. 

Obj. 3. Further, Bede says in a homily on the Circum- 
cision: Under the Law circumcision provided the same health- 
giving halm against the wound of original sin, as baptism 
in the time of revealed grace. But Baptism confers grace 
now. Therefore circumcision conferred grace; and in like 
manner, the other sacraments of the Law; for just as 
Baptism is the door of the sacraments of the New Law, 
so was circumcision the door of the sacraments of the Old 
Law: hence the Apostle says (Gal. v. 3) : / testify to every 
man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to the whole law. 

On the contrary, it is written (Gal. iv. 9) : Turn you again 
to the weak and needy elements ? i.e., to the Law, says the gloss, 
which is called weak, because it does not justify perfectly. 
But grace justifies perfectly. Therefore the sacraments of 
the Old Law did not confer grace. 

/ answer that. It cannot be said that the sacraments of the 
Old Law conferred sanctifying grace of themselves, i.e. 
by their own power: since thus Christ's Passion would not 
have been necessary, according to Gal. ii. 21: // justice be 
by the Law, then Christ died in vain. 

But neither can it be said that they derived the power 
of conferring sanctifying grace from Christ's Passion. For 
as it was stated above (A. 5), the power of Christ's Passion 
is imited to us by faith and the sacraments, but in different 
ways; because the link that comes from faith is produced 
by an act of the soul : whereas the link that comes from the 
sacraments, is produced by making use of exterior things. 
Now nothing hinders that which is subsequent in point of 
time, from causing movement, even before it exists in 
reality, in so far as it pre-exists in an act of the soul: thus 
the end, which is subsequent in point of time, moves the 
agent in so far as it is apprehended and desired by him. 
On the other hand, what does not yet actually exist, does 
not cause movement if we consider the use of exterior 
things. Consequently, the efficient cause cannot in point 
of time come into existence after causing movement, as 



42 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 62. Art. 6 

does the final cause. It is therefore clear tliat the sacra- 
ments of the New Law do reasonably derive the power of 
justification from Christ's Passion, which is the cause of 
man's righteousness; whereas the sacraments of the Old 
Law did not. 

Nevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith 
in Christ's Passion, just as we are. And the sacraments 
of the Old Law were a kind of protestation of that faith, 
inasmuch as they signified Christ's Passion and its effects. 
It is therefore manifest that the sacraments of the Old Law 
were not endowed with any power by which they conduced 
to the bestowal of justifying grace: and they merely signified 
faith by which men were justified. 

Reply Ohj. i. The Fathers of old had faith in the future 
Passion of Christ, which, inasmuch as it was apprehended 
by the mind, was able to justify them. But we have faith 
in the past Passion of Christ, which is able to justify, also 
by the real use of sacramental things as stated above. 

Reply Ohj. 2. That sanctification was but a figure: for 
they were said to be sanctified forasmuch as they gave 
themselves up to the Divine worship according to the rite 
of the Old Law, which was wholly ordained to the fore- 
shadowing of Christ's Passion. 

Reply Ohj. 3. There have been many opinions about 
Circumcision. For, according to some, Circumcision con- 
ferred no grace, but only remitted sin. — But this is impos- 
sible; because man is not justified from sin save by grace, 
according to Rom. iii. 24: Being justified freely by His grace. 
Wherefore others said that by Circumcision grace is 
conferred, as to the privative effects of sin, but not as 
to its positive effects. — But this also appears to be false, 
because by Circumcision, children received the faculty of 
obtaining glory, which is the ultimate positive effect of 
grace. Moreover, as regards the order of the formal cause, 
positive effects are naturally prior to privative effects, 
though according to the order of the material cause, the 
reverse is the case: for a form does not exclude privation 
save by informing the subject. 



SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT: GRACE 43 

Hence others say that Circumcision conferred grace also 
as regards a certain positive effect, i.e., by making man 
worthy of eternal life, but not so as to repress concupiscence 
which makes man prone to sin. And so at one time it 
seemed to me. But if the matter be considered carefully, 
this too appears to be untrue; because the very least grace 
is sufficient to resist any degree of concupiscence, and to 
merit eternal life. 

And therefore it seems better to say that Circumcision 
was a sign of justifying faith: wherefore the Apostle says 
(Rom. iv. 11) that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision, 
a seal of the justice of faith. Consequently grace was con- 
ferred in Circumcision in so far as it was a sign of Christ's 
future Passion, as will be made clear further on (Q. LXX., 
A. 4). 



QUESTION LXIII. 

OF THE OTHER EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS, WHICH 

IS A CHARACTER. 

{In Six Articles.) 

We have now to consider the other effect of the sacraments, 
which is a character: and concerning this there are six 
points of inquiry: (i) Whether by the sacraments a character 
is produced in the soul ? (2) What is this character? 
(3) Of whom is this character ? (4) What is its subject ? 
(5) Is it indehble ? (6) Whether every sacrament imprints 
a character ? 

First Article, 
whether a sacrament imprints a character on the 

SOUL ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that a sacrament does not imprint 
a character on the soul. For the word character seems to 
signify some kind of distinctive sign. But Christ's members 
are distinguished from others by eternal predestination, 
which does not imply anything in the predestined, but only 
in God predestinating, as we have stated in the First Part 
(Q. XXIII., A. 2). For it is written (2 Tim. ii. 19): The 
sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal : The 
Lord knoweth who are His. Therefore the sacraments do not 
imprint a character on the soul. 

Ohj. 2. Further, a character is a distinctive sign. Now 
a sign, as Augustine says {De Doct. Christ, ii.) is that which 
conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which 
it impresses on the senses. But nothing in the soul can 

44 



THE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER 45 

impress a species on the senses. Therefore it seems that 
no character is imprinted on the soul by the sacraments. 

Ohj. 3. Further, just as the behever is distinguished 
from the unbehever by the sacraments of the New Law, so 
was it under the Old Law. But the sacraments of the Old 
Law did not imprint a character; whence they are called 
justices of the flesh (Heb. ix. 10) by the Apostle. Therefore 
neither seemingly do the sacraments of the New Law. 

On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. i., 21, 22) : He 
, . . that hath anointed us is God ; Who also hath sealed us, 
and given the pledge of the spirit in our hearts. But a charac- 
ter means nothing else than a kind of sealing. Therefore 
it seems that by the sacraments God imprints His character 
on us. 

1 answer that, As is clear from what has been already 
stated (Q. LXIL, A. 5) the sacraments of the New Law are 
ordained for a twofold purpose; namely, for a remedy 
against sins; and for the perfecting of the soul in things 
pertaining to the Divine worship according to the rite of 
the Christian life. Now whenever anyone is deputed to 
some definite purpose he is wont to receive some outward 
sign thereof; thus in olden times soldiers who enlisted in 
the ranks used to be marked with certain characters on 
the body, through being deputed to a bodily service. 
Since, therefore, by the sacraments men are deputed to a 
spiritual service pertaining to the worship of God, it follows 
that by their means the faithful receive a certain spiritual 
character. Wherefore Augustine says {Contra Parmen. ii.) : 
// a deserter from the battle, through dread of the mark of 
enlistment on his body, throws himself on the emperor's 
clemency, and having besought and received mercy, return 
to the fight ; is that character renewed, when the man has been 
set free and reprimanded ? is it not rather acknowledged and 
approved ? Are the Christian sacraments, by any chance, of 
a nature less lasting than this bodily mark ? 

Reply Obj. i. The faithful of Christ are destined to the 
reward of the glory that is to come, by the seal of Divine 
Predestination. But they are deputed to acts becoming 



46 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 63. Art. 2 

the Church that is now, by a certain spiritual seal that is 
set on them, and is called a character. 

Reply Obj. 2. The character imprinted on the soul is a kind 
of sign in so far as it is imprinted by a sensible sacrament : 
since we know that a certain one has received the baptismal 
character, through his being cleansed by the sensible water. 
Nevertheless from a kind of likeness, anything that assimi- 
lates one thing to another, or discriminates one thing from 
another, even though it be not sensible, "can be called a 
character or a seal ; thus the Apostle calls Christ the figure or 
XapciKTTjp of the substance of the Father (Heb. i. 3). 

Reply Obj. 3. As stated above (Q. LXIL, A. 6) the sacra- 
ments of the Old Law had not in themselves any spiritual 
power of producing a spiritual effect. Consequently in 
those sacraments there was no need of a spiritual character, 
and bodily circumcision sufficed, which the Apostle calls 
a seal (Rom. iv. 11). 

Second Article, 
whether a character is a spiritual power ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that a character is not a spiritual 
power. For character seems to be the same thing as figure ; 
hence (Heb. i. 3), where we read figure of His substance, for 
figure the Greek has x^P^'^^'^VP- Now figure is in the fourth 
species of quality, and thus differs from power which is in 
the second species. Therefore character is not a spiritual 
power. 

Obj. 2. Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii.): The 
Divine Beatitude admits him that seeks happiness to a share 
in Itself, and grants this share to him by conferring on him 
Its light as a kind of seal. Consequently, it seems that a 
character is a kind of light. Now light belongs rather to 
the third species of quality. Therefore a character is 
not a power, since this seems to belong to the second 
species. 

Obj. 3. Further, character is defined by some thus: A 



THE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER 47 

character is a holy sign of the communion of faith and of the 
holy ordination, conferred hy a hierarch. Now a sign is in 
the genus of relation, not of power. Therefore a character 
is not a spiritual power. 

Ohj. 4. Further, a power is in the nature of a cause and 
principle {Metaph. v.). But a sign which is set down in 
the definition of a character is rather in the nature of an 
effect. Therefore a character is not a spiritual power. 

On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic, ii.): There 
are three things in the soul, power, habit, and passion. Now 
a character is not a passion: since a passion passes quickly, 
whereas a character is indelible, as will be made clear 
further on (A. 5). In like manner it is not a habit: because 
no habit is indifferent to acting well or ill : whereas a charac- 
ter is indifferent to either, since some use it well, some ill. 
Now this cannot occur with a habit : because no one abuses 
a habit of virtue, or uses well an evil habit. It remains, 
therefore, that a character is a power. 

/ answer that, As stated above (A. i), the sacraments of 
the New Law produce a character, in so far as by them we 
are deputed to the worship of God according to the rite 
of the Christian religion. Wherefore Dionysius {Eccl. 
Hier, ii.), after saying that God by a kind of sign grants a 
share of Himself to those that approach Him, adds by making 
them Godlike and communicators of Divine gifts. Now the 
worship of God consists either in receiving Divine gifts, 
or in bestowing them on others. And for both these pur- 
poses some power is needed; for to bestow something on 
others, active power is necessary; and in order to receive, 
we need a passive power. Consequently, a character 
signifies a certain spiritual power ordained unto things 
pertaining to the Divine worship. 

But it must be observed that this spiritual power is in- 
strumental: as we have stated above (Q. LXIL, A. 4) of the 
virtue which is in the sacraments. For to have a sacra- 
mental character belongs to God's ministers : and a minister 
is a kind of instrument, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i.). 
Consequently, just as the virtue which is in the sacraments 



48 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 63. Art. 2 

is not of itself in a genus, but is reducible to a genus, for 
the reason that it is of a transitory and incomplete nature: 
so also a character is not properly in a genus or species, 
but is reducible to the second species of quality. 

Reply Ohj. i. Configuration is a certain boundary of 
quantity. Wherefore, properly speaking, it is only in 
corporeal things; and of spiritual things is said meta- 
phorically. Now that which decides the genus or species 
of a thing must needs be predicated of it properly. Conse- 
quently, a character cannot be in the fourth species of 
quality, although some have held this to be the case. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The third species of quality contains only 
sensible passions or sensible qualities. Now a character 
is not a sensible light. Consequently, it is not in the third 
species of quality as some have maintained. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The relation signified by the word sign 
must needs have some foundation. Now the relation 
signified by this sign which is a character, cannot be founded 
immediately on the essence of the soul: because then it 
would belong to every soul naturally. Consequently, there 
must be something in the soul on which such a relation 
is founded. And it is in this that a character essentially 
consists. Therefore it need not be in the genus relation 
as some have held. 

Reply Ohj. 4. A character is in the nature of a sign in 
comparison to the sensible sacrament by which it is im- 
printed. But considered in itself, it is in the nature of 
a principle, in the way already explained. 

Third Article. 

whether the sacramental character is the character 

of christ ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that the sacramental character is 
not the character of Christ. For it is written (Eph. iv. 30) : 
Grieve not the Holy Spirit oj God, wherehy you are sealed. 
But a character consists essentially in something that seals. 



THE^ACRAMENTAL CHARACTER 49 

Therefore the sacramental character should be attributed 
to the Holy Ghost rather than to Christ. 

Ohj. 2. Further, a character has the nature of a sign. 
And it is a sign of the grace that is conferred by the sacra- 
ment. Now grace is poured forth into the soul by the 
whole Trinity; wherefore it is written (Ps. Ixxxiii. 12): 
The Lord will give grace and glory. Therefore it seems that 
the sacramental character should not be attributed specially 
to Christ. 

Ohj. 3. Further, a man is marked with a character that 
he may be distinguishable from others. But the saints are 
distinguishable from others by charity, which, as Augustine 
says {De Trin. xv.), alone separates the children of the Kingdom 
from the children of perdition : wherefore also the children 
of perdition are said to have the character of the beast 
(x\poc. xiii. 16, 17). But charity is not attributed to 
Christ, but rather to the Holy Ghost according to Rom. v. 5 : 
The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy 
Ghost, Who is given to us ; or even to the Father, according 
to 2 Cor. xiii. 13 : The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and 
the charity of God. Therefore it seems that the sacramental 
character should not be attributed to Christ. 

Oji the contrary, Some define character thus : A character is 
a distinctive mark printed in a man's rational soul by the eternal 
Character, whereby the created trinity is sealed with the likeness 
of the creating and re-creating Trinity, and distinguishing him 
from those who are not so enlikened, according to the state of 
faith. But the eternal Character is Christ Himself, accord- 
ing to Heb. i. 3 : Who being the brightness of His glory and 
the figure, or character, of His substance. It seems, therefore, 
that the character should properly be attributed to Christ. 

/ answer that. As has been made clear above (A. i), a 
character is properly a kind of seal, whereby something is 
marked, as being ordained to some particular end: thus 
a coin is marked for use in exchange of goods, and soldiers 
are marked with a character as being deputed to military 
service. Now the faithful are deputed to a twofold end. 
First and principally to the enjoyment of glory. And for 
III. 3 4 



50 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 63. Art. 3 

this purpose they are marked with the seal of grace accord- 
ing to Ezech. ix. 4: Mark Thou upon the foreheads of the 
men that sigh and mourn ; and Apoc. vii. 3 : Hurt not the 
earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, till we sign the servants of 
our God in their foreheads. 

Secondly, each of the faithful is deputed to receive, or to 
bestow on others, things pertaining to the worship of God. 
And this, properly speaking, is the purpose of the sacramental 
character. Now the whole rite of the Christian religion 
is derived from Christ's priesthood. Consequently, it is 
clear that the sacramental character is specially the charac- 
ter of Christ, to Whose character the faithful are likened 
by reason of the sacramental characters, which are nothing 
else than certain participations of Christ's Priesthood, 
flowing from Christ Himself. 

Reply Ohj. i. The Apostle speaks there of that sealing 
by which a man is assigned to future glory, and which is 
effected by grace. Now grace is attributed to the Holy 
Ghost, inasmuch as it is through love that God gives us 
something gratis, which is the very nature of grace: while 
the Holy Ghost is love. Wherefore it is written (i Cor. 
xii. 4): There are diversities of graces, hut the same Spirit. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The sacramental character is a thing as 
regards the exterior sacrament, and a sacrament in regard 
to the ultimate effect. Consequently, something can be 
attributed to a character in two ways. First, if the 
character be considered as a sacrament: and thus it is a 
sign of the invisible grace which is conferred in the sacra- 
ment. Secondly, if it be considered as a character. And 
thus it is a sign conferring on a man a likeness to some 
principal person in whom is vested the authority over that 
to which he is assigned: thus soldiers who are assigned to 
military service, are marked with their leader's sign, by 
which they are, in a fashion, likened to him. And in this 
way those who are deputed to the Christian worship, of 
which Christ is the author, receive a character by which 
they are likened to Christ. Consequently, properly speak- 
ing, this is Christ's character. 



THE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER 51 

Reply Ohj. 3. A character distinguishes one from another, 
in relation to some particular end, to which he, who receiver 
the character, is ordained: as has been stated concerning 
the military character (A. i) by which a soldier of the king 
is distinguished from the enemy's soldier in relation to the 
battle. In like manner the character of the faithful is 
that by which the faithful of Christ are distinguished from 
the servants of the devil, either in relation to eternal life, 
or in relation to the worship of the Church that now is. Of 
these the former is the result of charity and grace, as the 
objection runs; while the latter results from the sacramental 
character. Wherefore the character of the beast may be 
understood by opposition, to mean either the obstinate 
malice for which some are assigned to eternal punishment, 
or the profession of an unlawful form of worship. 

Fourth Article. 

whether the character be subjected in the powers 

of the soul ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the character is not subjected 
in the powers of the soul. For a character is said to be a 
disposition to grace. But grace is subjected in the essence 
of the soul as we have stated in the Second Part (I .-II., 
Q. ex., A. 4). Therefore it seems that the character is in 
the essence of the soul and not in the powers. 

Obj. 2. Further, a power of the soul does not seem to be 
the subject of anything save habit and disposition. But 
a character, as stated above (A. 2), is neither habit nor 
disposition, but rather a power: the subject of which is 
nothing else than the essence of the soul. Therefore it 
seems that the character is not subjected in a power of 
the soul, but rather in its essence. 

Obj. 3. Further, the powers of the soul are divided into 
those of knowledge and those of appetite. But it cannot 
be said that a character is only in a cognitive power, nor, 
again, only in an appetitive power : since it is neither ordained 



52 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 63. Art. 4 

to knowledge only, nor to desire only. Likewise, neither 
can it be said to be in both, because the same accident 
cannot be in several subjects. Therefore it seems that a 
character is not subjected in a power of the soul, but rather 
in the essence. 

On the contrary, A character, according to its definition 
given above (A. 3), is imprinted in the rational soul hy way of 
an image. But the image of the Trinity in the soul is seen in 
the powers. Therefore a character is in the powers of the soul. 

/ answer that, As stated above (A. 3), a character is a 
kind of seal by which the soul is marked, so that it may 
receive, or bestow on others, things pertaining to Divine 
worship. Now the Divine worship consists in certain 
actions: and the powers of the soul are properly ordained 
to actions, just as the essence is ordained to existence. 
Therefore a character is subjected not in the essence of the 
soul, but in its power. 

Reply Ohj. i. The subject is ascribed to an accident in 
respect of that to which the accident disposes it proximately, 
but not in respect of that to which it disposes it remotely or 
indirectly. Now a character disposes the soul directly and 
proximately to the fulfilling of things pertaining to Divine 
worship : and because such cannot be accomplished suitably 
without the help of grace, since, according to John iv. 24, they 
that adore God must adore Him in spirit and in truth, conse- 
quently, the Divine bounty bestows grace on those who 
receive the character, so that they may accomplish worthily 
the service to which they are deputed. Therefore the 
subject should be ascribed to a character in respect of those 
actions that pertain to the Divine worship, rather than in 
respect of grace. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The essence of the soul is the subject of 
the natural power, which flows from the principles of the 
essence. Now a character is not a power of this kind; but 
a spiritual power coming from without. Wherefore, just 
as the essence of the soul, from which man has his natural 
Hfe, is perfected by grace from which the soul derives 
spiritual life; so the natural power of the soul is perfected 



THE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER 53 

by a spiritual power, which is a character. For habit and 
disposition belong to a power of the soul, since they are 
ordained to actions of which the powers are the principles. 
And in like manner whatever is ordained to action, should 
be attributed to a power. 

Reply Ohj, 3. As stated above, a character is ordained 
unto things pertaining to the Divine worship; which is a 
protestation of faith expressed by exterior signs. Conse- 
quently, a character needs to be in the soul's cognitive 
power, where also is faith. 

Fifth Article, 
whether a character can be blotted out from 

THE SOUL ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection I. It seems that a character can be blotted out 
from the soul. Because the more perfect an accident is, 
the more firmly does it adhere to its subject. But grace 
is more perfect than a character; because a character is 
ordained unto grace as to a further end. Now grace is 
lost through sin. Much more,t herefore, is a character so 
lost. 

Ohj. 2. Further, by a character a man is deputed to the 
Divine worship, as stated above (AA. 3, 4). But some pass 
from the worship of God to a contrary worship by apostasy 
from the faith. It seems, therefore, that such lose the sacra- 
mental character. 

Ohj. 3. Further, when the end ceases, the means to the 
end should cease also: thus after the resurrection there will 
be no marriage, because begetting will cease, which is the 
purpose of marriage. Now the exterior worship to which 
a character is ordained, will not endure in heaven, where 
there will be no shadows, but all will be truth without a 
veil. Therefore the sacramental character does not last 
in the soul for ever: and consequently it can be blotted out. 

On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii.) : 
The Christian sacraments are not less lasting than the hodily 



54 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 63. Art. 5 

mark of military service. But the character of miHtary 
service is not repeated, but is recognized and approved in 
the man who obtains the emperor's forgiveness after 
offending him. Therefore neither can the sacramental 
character be blotted out. 

/ answer that, As stated above (A. 3), in a sacramental 
character Christ's faithful have a share in His Priesthood; 
in the sense that as Christ has the full power of a spiritual 
priesthood, so His faithful are likened to Him by sharing 
a certain spiritual power with regard to the sacraments and 
to things pertaining to the Divine worship. For this reason 
it is unbecoming tliat Christ should have a character: but 
His Priesthood is compared to a character, as that which 
is complete and perfect is compared to some participation 
of itself. Now Christ's Priesthood is eternal, according to 
Ps. cix. 4: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order 
ofMelchisedech. Consequently, every sanctification wrought 
by His Priesthood, is perpetual, enduring as long as the 
thing sanctified endures. This is clear even in inanimate 
things; for the consecration of a church or an altar lasts 
for ever unless they be destroyed. Since, therefore, the 
subject of a character is the soul as to its intellective part, 
where faith resides, as stated above (A. 4 «(i 3); it is clear 
that, the intellect being perpetual and incorruptible, a 
character cannot be blotted out from the soul. 

Reply Ohj. i. Both grace and character are in the soul, 
but in different ways. For grace is in the soul, as a form 
having complete existence therein: whereas a character is 
in the soul, as an instrumental power, as stated above (A. 2). 
Now a complete form is in its subject according to the 
condition of the subject. And since the soul as long as it 
is a wayfarer is changeable in respect of the free-will, it 
results that grace is in the soul in a changeable manner. 
But an instrumental power follows rather the condition 
of the principal agent: and consequently a character exists 
in the soul in an indelible manner, not from any perfection 
of its own, but from the perfection of Christ's Priesthood, 
from which the character flows like an instrumental power. 



THE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER 55 

Reply Ohj. 2. As i\.ugustine says (ibid.), even apostates 
are not deprived of their baptism, for when they repent and 
return to the fold they do not receive it again ; whence we 
conclude that it cannot be lost. The reason of this is that 
a character is an instrumental power, as stated above 
{ad i), and the nature of an instrument as such is to be 
moved by another, but not to move itself; this belongs to 
the will. Consequently, however much the will be moved 
in the contrary direction, the character is not removed, 
by reason of the immobility of the principal mover. 

Reply Obj. 3. Although external worship does not last 
after this life, yet its end remains. Consequently, after 
this life the character remains, both in the good as adding 
to their glory, and in the wicked as increasing their shame : 
just as the character of the military service remains in the 
soldiers after the victory, as the boast of the conquerors, 
and the disgrace of the conquered. 

Sixth Article. 

whether a character is imprinted by each 
sacrament of the new law } 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that a character is imprinted by all 
the sacraments of the New Law: because each sacrament 
of the New Law makes man a participator in Christ's 
Priesthood. But the sacramental character is nothing but 
a participation in Christ's Priesthood, as already stated 
(AA. 3, 5). Therefore it seems that a character is imprinted 
by each sacrament of the New Law. 

Obj. 2. Further, a character may be compared to the 
soul in which it is, as a consecration to that which is con- 
secrated. But by each sacrament of the New Law man 
becomes the recipient of sanctifying grace, as stated above 
(Q. LXIL, A. i). Therefore it seems that a character is 
imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law. 

Obj. 3. Further, a character is both a reality and a 
sacrament. But in each sacrament of the New Law, there 



56 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 63. Art. 6 

is something which is only a reaHty, and something which 
is only a sacrament, and something which is both reality 
and sacrament. Therefore a character is imprinted by each 
sacrament of the New Law. 

On the contrary, Those sacraments in which a character 
is imprinted, are not reiterated, because a character is 
indelible, as stated above (A. 5): whereas some sacraments 
are reiterated, for instance, penance and matrimony. 
Therefore not all the sacraments imprint a character. 

/ answer that, As stated above (Q. LXIL, AA. i, 5), the 
sacraments of the New Law are ordained for a twofold 
purpose, namely, as a remedy for sin, and for the Divine 
worship. Now all the sacraments, from the fact that they 
confer grace, have this in common, that they afford a 
remedy against sin: whereas not all the sacraments are 
directly ordained to the Divine worship. Thus it is clear 
that penance, whereby man is delivered from sin, does not 
afford man any advance in the Divine worship, but restores 
him to his former state. 

Now a sacrament may belong to the Divine worship in 
three ways: first in regard to the thing done; secondly, in 
regard to the agent; thirdly, in regard to the recipient. 
In regard to the thing done, the Eucharist belongs to the 
Divine worship, for the Divine worship consists principally 
therein, so far as it is the sacrifice of the Church. And by 
this same sacrament a character is not imprinted on man ; 
because it does not ordain man to any further sacramental 
action or benefit received, since rather is it the end and 
consummation of all the sacraments, as Dionysius says 
(Eccl. Hier. iii.). But it contains within itself Christ, in 
Whom there is not the character, but the very plenitude 
of the Priesthood. 

But it is the sacrament of Order that pertains to the 
sacramental agents: for it is by this sacrament that men 
are deputed to confer sacraments on others: while the 
sacrament of Baptism pertains to the recipients, since it 
confers on man the power to receive the other sacraments 
of the Church; whence it is called the door of the sacraments. 



THE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER 57 

In a way Confirmation also is ordained for the same purpose, 
as we shall explain in its proper place (Q. LXV., A. 3). 
Consequently, these three sacraments imprint a character, 
namely, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order. 

Reply Ohj. i. Every sacrament makes man a participator 
in Christ's Priesthood, from the fact that it confers on him 
some effect thereof. But every sacrament does not depute 
a man to do or receive something pertaining to the worship 
of the priesthood of Christ: while it is just this that is 
required for a sacrament to imprint a character. 

Reply Obj. 2. Man is sanctified by each of the sacra- 
ments, since sanctity means immunity from sin, which is 
the effect of grace. But in a special way some sacraments, 
which imprint a character, bestow on man a certain conse- 
cration, thus deputing him to the Divine worship: just 
as inanimate things are said to be consecrated forasmuch 
as they are deputed to Divine worship. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Although a character is a reality and a 
sacrament, it does not follow that whatever is a reality 
and a sacrament, is also a character. With regard to the 
other sacraments we shall explain further on what is the 
reality and what is the sacrament. 



QUESTION LXIV. 

OF THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS. 

{In Ten A rticles.) 

In the next place we have to consider the causes of the 
sacraments, both as to authorship and as to ministration. 
Concerning which there are ten points of inquiry : (i) Whether 
God alone works inwardly in the sacraments ? (2) Whether 
the institution of the sacraments is from God alone ? 
(3) Of the power which Christ exercised over the sacra- 
ments. (4) Whether He could transmit that power to 
others ? (5) Whether the wicked can have the power of 
administering the sacraments ? (6) Whether the wicked 
sin in administering the sacraments ? (7) Whether the 
angels can be ministers of the sacraments ? (8) Whether 
the minister's intention is necessary in the sacraments ? 

(9) Whether right faith is required therein; so that it be 
impossible for an unbeliever to confer a sacrament ? 

(10) Whether a right intention is required therein ? 

First Article. 

whether god alone, or the minister also, works 
inwardly unto the sacramental effect ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that not God alone, but also the 
minister, works inwardly unto the sacramental effect. 
For the inward sacramental effect is to cleanse man from 
sin and enlighten him by grace. But it belongs to the 
ministers of the Church to cleanse, enlighten and perfect, 
as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. v.). Therefore it seems 

58 



THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS 59 

that the sacramental effect is the work not only of God, but 
also of the ministers of the Church. 

Ohj. 2. Further, certain prayers are offered up in conferring 
the sacraments. But the prayers of the righteous are 
more acceptable to God than those of any other, according 
to John ix. 31 : If a man he a server of God, and doth His will, 
him He heareth. Therefore it seems that a man obtains 
a greater sacramental effect if he receive it from a good 
minister. Consequently, the interior effect is partly the 
work of the minister and not of God alone. 

Obj. 3. Further, man is of greater account than an inani- 
mate thing. But an inanimate thing contributes something 
to the interior effect : since water touches the body and cleanses 
the soul, as Augustine says (Tract. Ixxx. in foan-). There- 
fore the interior sacramental effect is partly the work of 
man and not of God alone. 

On the contrary, It is written (Rom. viii. 33): God that 
justifieth. Since, then, the inward effect of all the sacraments 
is justification, it seems that God alone works the interior 
sacramental effect. 

/ answer that. There are two ways of producing an effect; 
first, as a principal agent; secondly, as an instrument. 
In the former way the interior sacramental effect is the 
work of God alone : first, because God alone can enter the 
soul wherein the sacramental effect takes place; and no 
agent can operate immediately where it is not: secondly, 
because grace which is an interior sacramental effect is from 
God alone, as we have established in the Second Part 
(I. -I I., Q. CXIL, A. i); while the character which is the 
interior effect of certain sacraments, is an instrumental 
power which flows from the principal agent, which is God. 

In the second way, however, the interior sacramental 
effect can be the work of man, in so far as he works as a 
minister. For a minister is of the nature of an instrument, 
since the action of both is applied to something extrinsic, 
while the interior effect is produced through the power of 
the principal agent, which is God. 

Reply Obj. i. Cleansing in so far as it is attributed to the 



6o THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 64. Art i 

ministers of the Church is not a washing from sin: deacons 
are said to cleanse, inasmuch as they remove the unclean 
from the body of the faithful, or prepare them by their 
pious admonitions for the reception of the sacraments. 
In like manner also priests are said to enlighten God's 
people, not indeed by giving them grace, but by conferring 
on them the sacraments of grace ; as Dionysius explains (ibid.). 

Reply Ohj. 2. The prayers which are said in giving the 
sacraments, are offered to God, not on the part of the 
individual, but on the part of the whole Church, whose 
prayers are acceptable to God, according to Matth. xviii. 19 : 
// two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything 
whatsoever they shall ask, it shall he done to them by My 
Father. Nor is there any reason why the devotion of a 
just man should not contribute to this effect. 

But that which is the sacramental effect is not impetrated 
by the prayer of the Church or of the minister, but through 
the merit of Christ's Passion, the power of which operates 
in the sacraments, as stated above (Q. LXIL, A. 5). 
Wherefore the sacramental effect is made no better by a 
better minister. And yet something in addition may be 
impetrated for the receiver of the sacrament through the 
devotion of the minister: but this is not the work of the 
minister, but the work of God Who hears the minister's 
prayer. 

Reply Obj. 3. Inanimate things do not produce the sacra- 
mental effect, except instrumentally, as stated above. In 
like manner neither do men produce the sacramental effect, 
except ministerially, as also stated above. 

Second Article, 
whether the sacraments are instituted by god 

ALONE ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the sacraments are not in- 
stituted by God alone. For those things which God has 
instituted are delivered to us in Holy Scripture. But in 



THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS 6i 

the sacraments certain things are done which are nowhere 
mentioned in Holy Scripture; for instance, the chrism with 
which men are confirmed, the oil with which priests are 
anointed, and many others, both words and actions, which 
we employ in the sacraments. Therefore the sacraments 
were not instituted by God alone. 

Ohj. 2. Further, a sacrament is a kind of sign. Now 
sensible things have their own natural signification. Nor 
can it be said that God takes pleasure in certain significa- 
tions and not in others; because He approves of all that 
He made. Moreover, it seems to be peculiar to the demons 
to be enticed to something by means of signs ; for Augustine 
says {De Civ. Dei xxi.): The demons are enticed . . . by means 
of creatures, which were created not by them but by God, by 
vanous means of attraction according to their various natures, 
not as an animal is enticed by food, but as a spirit is drawn 
by a sign. It seems, therefore, that there is no need for 
the sacraments to be instituted by God. 

Obj. 3. Further, the apostles were God's vicegerents on 
earth: hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. ii. 10) : For what I have 
pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have 
I done it in the person of Christ, i.e., as though Christ Himself 
had pardoned. Therefore it seems that the apostles and 
their successors can institute new sacraments. 

On the contrary. The institutor of anything is he who gives 
it strength and power: as in the case of those who institute 
laws. But the power of a sacrament is from God alone, 
as we have shown above (A. i; Q. LXII., A. i). Therefore 
God alone can institute a sacrament. 

/ answer that. As appears from what has been said above 
(ibid.), the sacraments are instrumental causes of spiritual 
effects. Now an instrument has its power from the prin- 
cipal agent. But an agent in respect of a sacrament is 
twofold; viz., he who institutes the sacraments, and he who 
makes use of the sacrament instituted, by applying it for 
the production of the effect. Now the power of a sacra- 
ment cannot be from him who makes use of the sacrament : 
because he works but as a minister. Consequently, it 



62 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '' Q. 64. Art. 2 

follows that the power of the sacrament is from the institu- 
tor of the sacrament. Since, therefore, the power of the 
sacrament is from God alone, it follows that God alone 
can institute the sacraments. 

Reply Ohj. i. Human institutions observed in the sacra- 
ments are not essential to the sacrament ; but belong to the 
solemnity which is added to the sacraments in order to 
arouse devotion and reverence in the recipients. But those 
things that are essential to the sacrament, are instituted 
by Christ Himself, Who is God and man. And though they 
are not all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church 
holds them from the intimate tradition of the apostles, 
according to the saying of the Apostle (i Cor. xi. 34): The 
rest I will set in order when I come. 

Reply Ohj. 2. From their very nature sensible things 
have a certain aptitude for the signif 5dng of spiritual effects : 
but this aptitude is fixed by the Divine institution to some 
special signification. This is what Hugh of S. Victor means 
by saying (De Sacram. i.) that a sacrament owes its significa- 
tion to its institution. Yet God chooses certain things rather 
than others for sacramental signification, not as though 
His choice were restricted to them, but in order that their 
signification be more suitable to them. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The apostles and their successors are God's 
vicars in governing the Church which is built on faith and 
the sacraments of faith. Wherefore, just as they may not 
institute another Church, so neither may they deliver 
another faith, nor institute other sacraments: on the con- 
trary, the Church is said to be built up with the sacraments 
which flowed from the side of Christ while hanging on the 
Cross. 

Third Article. 

whether christ as man had the power of pro- 
ducing the inward sacramental effect ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — • 
Objection i. It seems that Christ as man had the power 
of producing the interior sacramental effect. For John 



THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS 63 

the Baptist said (John i. 33): He, Who sent me to baptize 
in water, said to me : He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit 
descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that haptizeth 
with the Holy Ghost. But to baptize with the Holy Ghost 
is to confer inwardly the grace of the Holy Ghost. And 
the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ as man, not as 
God: for thus He Himself gives the Holy Ghost. Therefore 
it seems that Christ, as man, had the power of producing 
the inward sacramental effect. 

Ohj. 2. Further, our Lord said (Matth. ix. 6): That you 
may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive 
sins. But forgiveness of sins is an inward sacramental 
effect. Therefore it seems that Christ as man produces 
the inward sacramental effect. 

Obj. 3. Further, the institution of the sacraments belongs 
to him who acts as principal agent in producing the inward 
sacramental effect. Now it is clear that Christ instituted 
the sacraments. Therefore it is He that produces the 
inward sacramental effect. 

Obj. 4. Further, no one can confer the sacramental effect 
without conferring the sacrament, except he produce the 
sacramental effect by his own power. But Christ conferred 
the sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; 
as in the case of Magdalen to whom He said: Thy sins are 
forgiven Thee (Luke vii. 48). Therefore it seems that 
Christ, as man, produces the inward sacramental effect. 

Obj. 5. Further, the principal agent in causing the inward 
effect is that in virtue of which the sacrament operates. 
But the sacraments derive their power from Christ's Passion 
and through the invocation of His Name; according to 
I Cor. i. 13 : Was Paul then crucified for you ? or were you 
baptized in the name of Paul ? Therefore Christ, as man, 
produces the inward sacramental effect. 

On the contrary, Augustine (Isidore, Etymol. vi.) says: 
The Divine power in the sacraments works inwardly in pro- 
ducing their salutary effect. Now the Divine power is 
Christ's as God, not as man. Therefore Christ produces 
the inward sacramental effect, not as man but as God. 



64 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 64. Art. 3 

/ answer that, Christ produces the inward sacramental 
effect, both as God and as man, but not in the same way. 
For, as God, He works in the sacraments by authority: but, 
as man. His operation conduces to the inward sacramental 
effects meritoriously and efficiently, but instrument ally. 
For it has been stated (Q. XLVHL, AA. i, 6; Q. XLIX., 
A. i) that Christ's Passion which belongs to Him in respect 
of His human nature, is the cause of justification, both 
meritoriously and efficiently, not as the principal cause 
thereof, or by His own authority, but as an instrument, 
in so far as His humanity is the instrument of His Godhead, 
as stated above (Q. XKL, AA. 2, 3; Q. XIX., A. i). 

Nevertheless, since it is an instrument united to the 
Godhead in unity of Person, it has a certain headship and 
efficiency in regard to extrinsic instruments, which are the 
ministers of the Church and the sacraments themselves, 
as has been explained above (A. i). Consequently, just 
as Christ, as God, has power of atithority over the sacraments, 
so, as man. He has the power of ministry in chief, or power 
of excellence. And this consists in four things. First in this, 
that the merit and power of His Passion operates in the 
sacraments, as stated above (Q. LXH., A. 5). And because 
the power of the Passion is communicated to us by faith, 
according to Rom. iii. 25: Whom God hath proposed to be 
a propitiation, through faith in His blood, which faith we 
proclaim by calling on the name of Christ: therefore, 
secondly, Christ's power of excellence over the sacraments 
consists in this, that they are sanctified by the invocation 
of His name. And because the sacraments derive their 
power from their institution, hence, thirdly, the excellence 
of Christ's power consists in this, that He, Who gave them 
their power, could institute the sacraments. And since 
cause does not depend on effect, but rather conversely, 
it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He could 
bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the 
exterior sacrament. Thus it is clear how to solve the 
objections; for the arguments on either side are true to 
a certain extent, as explained above. 



THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS 65 



Fourth Article. 

whether christ could communicate to ministers 
the power which he had in the sacraments ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article ;— 

Objection i. It seems that Christ could not communicate 
to ministers the power which He had in the sacraments. 
For as Augustine argues against Maximin, if He could, hut 
would not, He was jealous of His power. But jealousy was 
far from Christ Who had the fulness of charity. Since, 
therefore, Christ did not communicate His power to 
ministers, it seems that He could not. 

Ohj. 2. Further, on John xiv. 12: Greater than these shall 
he do, Augustine says {Tract. Ixxii.): / affirm this to be 
altogether greater, namely, for a man from being ungodly 
to be made righteous, than to create heaven and earth. But 
Christ could not communicate to His disciples the power 
of creating heaven and earth: neither, therefore, could He 
give them the power of making the ungodly to be 
righteous. Since, therefore, the justification of the un- 
godly is effected by the power that Christ has in the 
sacraments, it seems that He could not communicate that 
power to ministers. 

Obj. 3. Further, it belongs to Christ as Head of the 
Church that grace should flow from Flim to others, according 
to John i. 16: Of His fulness we all have received. But this 
could not be communicated to others ; since then the Church 
would be deformed, having many heads. Therefore it 
seems that Christ could not communicate His power to 
ministers. 

On the contrary, On John i. 31 : I knew Him not, Augustine 
says (Tract, v.) that he did not know that Our Lord having 
the authority of baptizing . . . would keep it to Himself. But 
John would not have been in ignorance of this, if such a 
power were incommunicable. Therefore Christ could com- 
municate His power to ministers. 

/ answer that, As stated above (A. 3), Christ had a twofold 

I". 3 5 



66 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 64. Art. 4 

power in the sacraments. One was the power of authority, 
which belongs to Him as God: and this power He could 
not communicate to any creature; just as neither could 
He communicate the Divine Essence. The other was the 
power of excellence, which belongs to Him as man. This 
power He could communicate to ministers; namely, by 
giving them such a fulness of grace, — ^that their merits 
would conduce to the sacramental effect, — 'that by the 
invocation of their names, the sacraments would be sancti- 
fied ; — and that they themselves might institute sacraments, 
and by their mere will confer the sacramental effect without 
observing the sacramental rite. For a united instrument, 
the more powerful it is, is all the more able to lend its power 
to the separated instrument; as the hand can to a stick. 

Reply Ohj. i. It was not through jealousy that Christ 
refrained from communicating to ministers His power of 
excellence, but for the good of the faithful; lest they should 
put their trust in men, and lest there should be various 
kinds of sacraments, giving rise to division in the Church; 
as may be seen in those who said : / am of Paul, I am of 
Apollo, and I of Cephas (i Cor. i. 12). 

Reply Ohj. 2. This objection is true of the power of 
authority, which belongs to Christ as God. — At the same 
time the power of excellence can be called authority in 
comparison to other ministers. Whence on i Cor. i. 13: 
Is Christ divided ? the gloss says that He could give 
power of authority in baptizing, to those to whom He gave the 
power of administering it. 

Reply Ohj. 3. It was in order to avoid the incongruity 
of many heads in the Church, that Christ was unwilling 
to communicate to ministers His power of excellence. If, 
however, He had done so. He would have been Head in 
chief; the others in subjection to Him. 



THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS 67 



Fifth Article. 

whether the sacraments can be conferred by 
evil ministers ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the sacraments cannot be 
conferred by evil ministers. For the sacraments of the 
New Law are ordained for the purpose of cleansing from 
sin and for the bestowal of grace. Now evil men, being 
themselves unclean, cannot cleanse others from sin, accord- 
ing to Ecclus. xxxiv. 4: Who (Vulg., What) can he made 
clean by the unclean ? Moreover, since they have not grace, 
it seems that they cannot give grace, for no one gives what 
he has not. It seems, therefore, that the sacraments cannot 
be conferred by wicked men. 

Obj. 2. Further, all the power of the sacraments is derived 
from Christ, as stated above (A. 3; Q. LXII., A. 5). But 
evil men are cut off from Christ: because they have not 
charity, by which the members are united to their Head, 
according to i John iv. 16: He that ahideth in charity, 
abideth in God, and God in him. Therefore it seems that 
the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil men. 

Obj. 3. Further, if anything is wanting that is required 
for the sacraments, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, 
if the required matter or form be wanting. But the 
minister required for a sacrament is one who is without the 
stain of sin, according to Lev. xxi. 17, 18: Whosoever of 
thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he shall 
not offer bread to his God, neither shall he approach to minister 
to Him. Therefore it seems that if the minister be wicked, 
the sacrament has no effect. 

On the contrary, Augustine says on John i. 33 : He upon 
Whom thou shalt see the Spirit, etc. (Tract v. in Joan.), that 
John did not know that Our Lord, having the authority of 
baptizing, would keep it to Himself, but that the ministry 
would certainly pass to both good and evil men. . . . What 
is a bad minister to thee, where the Lord is good ? 



68 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 64. Art. 5 

7 answer that, As stated above (A. i), the ministers of 
the Church work instrumentally in the sacraments, because, 
in a way, a minister is of the nature of an instrument. 
But, as stated above (Q. LXII., AA. i, 4), an instrument 
acts not by reason of its own form, but by the power of the 
one who moves it. Consequently, whatever form or power 
an instrument has in addition to that which it has as an 
instrument, is accidental to it : for instance, that a physician's 
body, which is the instrument of his soul, wherein is his 
medical art, be healthy or sickly; or that a pipe, through 
which water passes, be of silver or lead. Therefore the 
ministers of the Church can confer the sacraments, though 
they be wicked. 

Reply Obj. i. The ministers of the Church do not by their 
own power cleanse from sin those who approach the sacra- 
ments, nor do they confer grace on them : it is Christ Who 
does this by His own power while He employs them as 
instruments. Consequently, those who approach the sacra- 
ments receive an effect whereby they are enhkened not to 
the ministers but to Christ. 

Reply Obj. 2. Christ's members are united to their Head 
by charity, so that they may receive life from Him; for as 
it is written (i John iii. 14): He that loveth not abideth in 
death. Now it is possible for a man to work with a lifeless 
instrument, and separated from him as to bodily union, 
provided it be united to him by some sort of motion: for 
a workman works in one way with his hand, in another with 
his axe. Consequently, it is thus that Christ works in 
the sacraments, both by wicked men as lifeless instruments, 
and by good men as living instruments. 

Reply Obj. 3. A thing is required in a sacrament in two 
ways. First, as being essential to it : and if this be wanting, 
the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the due form or 
matter be wanting. — Secondly, a thing is required for a 
sacrament, by reason of a certain fitness. And in this way 
good ministers are required for a sacrament. 



THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS 69 



Sixth Article. 

whether wicked men sin in administering the 

sacraments ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that wicked men do not sin in 
administering the sacraments. For just as men serve God 
in the sacraments, so do they serve Him in works of charity ; 
whence it is written (Heb. xiii. 16) : Do not forget to do good 
and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's favour is obtained. 
But the wicked do not sin in serving God by works of 
charity: indeed, they should be persuaded to do so, accord- 
ing to Dan. iv. 24: Let my counsel be acceptable to the king; 
Redeem thou thy sins with alms. Therefore it seems that 
wicked men do not sin in administering the sacraments. 

Obj. 2. Further, whoever co-operates with another in 
his sin, is also guilty of sin, according to Rom. i. 32 : He is 
(Vulg., They are) worthy of death ; not only he that commits 
the sin, but also he who consents to them that do them. But 
if wicked ministers sin in administering sacraments, [those 
who receive sacraments from them, co-operate in their sin. 
Therefore they would sin also; which seems unreasonable. 

Obj. 3. Further, it seems that no one should act when in 
doubt, for thus man would be driven to despair, as being 
unable to avoid sin. But if the wicked were to sin in 
administering sacraments, they would be in a state of 
perplexity : since sometimes they would sin also if they did 
not administer sacraments; for instance, when by reason 
of their office it is their bounden duty to do so; for it is 
written (i Cor. ix. 16): For a necessity lieth upon me: Woe 
is unto me if I preach not the gospel. Sometimes also on 
account of some danger; for instance, if a child in danger 
of death be brought to a sinner for baptism. Therefore it 
seems that the wicked do not sin in administering the 
sacraments. 

On the contrary, Dionysius says {Eccl. Hier. i.) that it is 
wrong for the wicked even to touch the symbols, i.e., the sacra- 



70 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 64. Art. 6 

mental signs. And he says in the epistle to Demophilus: 
It seems presumptuous for such a man, i.e., a sinner, to 
lay hands on priestly things ; he is neither afraid nor ashamed, 
all unworthy that he is, to take part in Divine things, with 
the thought that God does not see what he sees in himself : he 
thinks, by false pretences, to cheat Him Whom he calls his 
Father ; he dares to utter, in the person of Christ, words 
polluted by his infamy, I will not call them prayers, over the 
Divine symbols. 

I answer that, A sinful action consists in this, that a man 
fails to act as he ought to, as the Philosopher explains 
(Ethic, ii.). Now it has been said (A. 5 ad 3) that it is 
fitting for the ministers of sacraments to be righteous; 
because ministers should be like unto their Lord, according 
to Lev. xix. 2 : Be ye holy, because I . . . am holy ; and Ecclus. 
X. 2: As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his 
ministers. Consequently, there can be no doubt that the 
wicked sin by exercising the ministry of God and the Church, 
by conferring the sacraments. And since this sin pertains 
to irreverence towards God and the contamination of holy 
things, as far as the man who sins is concerned, although 
holy things in themselves cannot be contaminated; it 
follows that such a sin is mortal in its genus. 

Reply Ob], i. Works of charity are not made holy by 
some process of consecration, but they belong to the holiness 
of righteousness, as being in a way parts of righteousness. 
Consequently, when a man shows himself as a minister of 
God, by doing works of charity, if he be righteous, he will 
be made yet holier ; but if he be a sinner, he is thereby dis- 
posed to holiness. On the other hand, the sacraments are 
holy in themselves owing to their mystical consecration. 
Wherefore the holiness of righteousness is required in the 
minister, that he may be suitable for his ministry : for which 
reason he acts unbecomingly and sins, if while in a state of 
sin he attempts to fulfil that ministry. 

Reply Obj. 2. He who approaches a sacrament, receives 
it from a minister of the Church, not because he is such and 
such a man, but because he is a minister of the Church. 



THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS 71 

Consequently, as long as the latter is tolerated in the ministry, 
he that receives a sacrament from him, does not com- 
municate in his sin, but communicates with the Church 
from whom he has his ministry. But if the Church, by 
degrading, excommunicating, or suspending him, does not 
tolerate him in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament 
from him sins, because he communicates in his sin. 

Reply Ohj. 3. A man who is in mortal sin is not perplexed 
simply, if by reason of his ofhce it be his bounden duty to 
minister sacraments; because he can repent of his sinfand 
so minister lawfully. But there is nothing unreasonable 
in his being perplexed, if we\suppose that he wishes to 
remain in sin. 

However, in a case of necessity when even a lay person 
might baptize, he would not sin in baptizing. For it is 
clear that then he does not exercise the ministry of the 
Church, but comes to the aid of one who is in need of his 
services. It is not so with the other sacraments, which 
are not so necessary as baptism, as we shall show further 
on (Q. LXV., AA. 3, 4; Q- LXVH., A. 3). 

Seventh Article, 
whether angels can administer sacraments ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that angels can administer sacra- 
ments. Because a higher minister can do whatever the 
lower can; thus a priest can do whatever a deacon can: 
but not conversely. But angels are higher ministers in the 
hierarchical order than any men whatsoever, as Dionysius 
says (Ccel. Hier. ix.). Therefore, since men can be ministers 
of sacraments, it seems that much more can angels be. 

Obj. 2. Further, in heaven holy men are likened to the 
angels (Matth. xxii. 30). But some holy men, when in 
heaven, can be ministers of the sacraments; since the sacra- 
mental character is indelible, as stated above (Q. LXIII., 
A. 5). Therefore it seems that angels too can be ministers 
of sacraments. 



72 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q 64. Art. 7 

Ohj. 3. Further, as stated above (Q. VIII. , A. 7), the 
devil is head of the wicked, and the wicked are his members. 
But sacraments can be administered by the wicked. There- 
fore it seems that they can be administered even by demons. 

On the contrary, It is written (Heb. v. i) : Every high priest 
taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things 
that appertain to God. But angels whether good or bad are 
not taken from among men. Therefore they are not 
ordained ministers in the things that appertain to God, 
i.e., in the sacraments. 

/ answer that. As stated above (A. 3; Q. LXII., A. 5), 
the whole power of the sacraments flows from Christ's 
Passion, which belongs to Him as man. And Him in 
their very nature men, not angels, resemble; indeed, in 
respect of His Passion, He is described as being a little 
lower than the angels (Heb. ii. 9). Consequently, it belongs 
to men, but not to angels, to dispense the sacraments and 
to take part in their administration. 

But it must be observed that as God did not bind His 
power to the sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the 
sacramental effect without conferring the sacrament; so 
neither did He bind His power to the ministers of the Church 
so as to be unable to give angels power to administer the 
sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of 
truth ; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, 
it should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident 
that this is being done by the will of God: for instance, 
certain churches are said to have been consecrated by the 
ministry of the angels.* But if demons, who are lying 
spirits, were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be 
pronounced as invalid. 

Reply Ohj. i. What men do in a less perfect manner, i.e., 
by sensible sacraments, which are proportionate to their 
nature, angels also do, as ministers of a higher degree, in a 
more perfect manner, i.e., invisibly, — by cleansing, en- 
lightening, and perfecting. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The saints in heaven resemble the angels 
* See Acta SS., September 29 



THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS 73 

as to their share of glory, but not as to the conditions of 
their nature: and consequently not in regard to the sacra- 
ments. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Wicked men do not owe their power of 
conferring sacraments to their being members of the devil. 
Consequently, it does not follow that a fortiori the devil, 
their head, can do so. 



Eighth Article. 

whether the minister's intention is required for 
the validity of a sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the minister's intention is not 
required for the validity of a sacrament. For the minister 
of a sacrament works instrumentally. But the perfection 
of an action does not depend on the intention of the instru- 
ment, but on that of the principal agent. Therefore the 
minister's intention is not necessary for the perfecting of 
a sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, one man's intention cannot be known 
to another. Therefore if the minister's intention were 
required for the validity of a sacrament, he who approaches 
a sacrament could not know whether he has received the 
sacrament. Consequently he could have no certainty in 
regard to salvation; the more that some sacraments are 
necessary for salvation, as we shall state further on 

(Q. LXV.,A..4). 

Ohj. 3. Further, a man's intention cannot bear on that 
to which he does not attend. But sometimes ministers 
of sacraments do not attend to what they say or do, through 
thinking of something else. Therefore in this respect the 
sacrament would be invalid through want of intention. 

On the contrary, What is unintentional happens by chance. 
But this cannot be said of the sacramental operation. 
Therefore the sacraments require the intention of the 
minister. 

/ answer that, When a thing is indifferent to many uses, 



74 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 64. Art. 8 

it must needs be determined to one, if that one has to be 
effected. Now those things which are done in the sacra- 
ments, can be done with various intent ; for instance, washing 
with water, which is done in baptism, may be ordained to 
bodily cleanhness, to the health of the body, to amusement, 
and many other similar things. Consequently, it needs 
to be determined to one purpose, i.e., the sacramental 
effect, by the intention of him who washes. And this in- 
tention is expressed by the words which are pronounced 
in the sacraments; for instance the words, / baptize thee 
in the name of the Father, etc. 

Reply Ohj. i. An inanimate instrument has no intention 
regarding the effect; but instead of the intention there is 
the motion whereby it is moved by the principal agent. 
But an animate instrument, such as a minister, is not only 
moved, but in a sense moves itself, in so far as by his will 
he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his 
intention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the 
principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to 
do that which Christ and the Church do. 

Reply Ohj. 2. On this point there are two opinions. For 
some hold that the mental intention of the minister is 
necessary ; in the absence of which the sacrament is invalid : 
and that this defect in the case of children who have not 
the intention of approaching the sacrament, is made good 
by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults, who 
have that intention, this defect is made good by their 
faith and devotion. 

This might be true enough of the ultimate effect, i.e., 
justification from sins; but as to that effect which is both 
real and sacramental, viz., the character, it does not appear 
possible for it to be made good by the devotion of the 
recipient, since a character is never imprinted save by a 
sacrament. 

Consequently, others with better reason hold that the 
minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole 
Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered 
by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that 



THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS 75 

this suffices for the vahdity of the sacrament, except the 
contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister 
or of the recipient of the sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Although he who thinks of something else, 
has no actual intention, yet he has habitual intention, which 
suffices for the validity of the sacrament ; for instance if, 
when a priest goes to baptize someone, he intends to do to 
him what the Church does. Wherefore if subsequently 
during the exercise of the act his mind be distracted by other 
matters, the sacrament is valid in virtue of his original 
intention. Nevertheless, the minister of a sacrament 
should take great care to have actual intention. But this 
is not entirely in man's power, because when a man wishes 
to be very intent on something, he begins unintentionally 
to think of other things, according to Ps. xxxix. 13: My 
heart hath forsaken me. 

Ninth Article. 

whether faith is required of necessity in the 
minister of a sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that faith is required of necessity 
in the minister of a sacrament. For, as stated above 
(A. 8), the intention of the minister is necessary for the 
validity of a sacrament. But faith directs the intention as 
Augustine says against Julian {In Psalm xxxi., cf. Contra 
Julian, iv.). Therefore, if the minister is without the true 
faith, the sacrament is invalid. 

Ohj. 2. Further, if a minister of the Church has not the 
true faith, it seems that he is a heretic. But heretics, 
seemingly, cannot confer sacraments. For Cyprian says 
in an epistle against heretics (Ixxiii.) : Everything whatsoever 
heretics do, is carnal, void and counterfeit, so that nothing 
that they do should receive our approval. And Pope Leo 
says in his epistle to Leo Augustus (clvi.): It is a matter of 
notoriety that the light of all the heavenly sacraments is ex- 
tinguished in the see of Alexandria, by an act of dire and 



76 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 64. Art. 9 

senseless cruelty. The sacrifice is no longer offered, the 
chrism is no longer consecrated, all the mysteries of religion 
have fled at the touch of the parricide hands of ungodly men. 
Therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that the 
minister should have the true faith. 

Ohj. 3. Further, those who have not the true faith seem 
to be separated from the Church by excommunication: 
for it is written in the second canonical epistle of John (10) : 
// any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive 
him not into the house, nor say to him ; God speed you : and 
(Tit. iii. 10) : y4 man that is a heretic, after the first and second 
admonition avoid. But it seems that an excommunicate 
cannot confer a sacrament of the Church: since he is 
separated from the Church, to whose ministry the dispensa- 
tion of the sacraments belongs. Therefore a sacrament 
requires of necessity that the minister should have the true 
faith. 

On the contrary, Augustine says against the Donatist 
Petilian: Remember that the evil lives of wicked men are 
not prejudicial to God^s sacraments, by rendering them either 
invalid or less holy. 

I answer that. As stated above (A. 5), since the minister 
works instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his 
own but by Christ's power. Now just as charity belongs 
to a man's own power so also does faith. Wherefore, just 
as the validity of a sacrament does not require that the 
minister should have charity, and even sinners can confer 
sacraments, as stated above {ibid.) ; so neither is it necessary 
that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can confer 
a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be 
there. 

Reply Ob]. 1. It may happen that a man's faith is defec- 
tive in regard to something else, and not in regard to the 
reality of the sacrament which he confers: for instance, 
he may believe that it is unlawful to swear in any case 
whatever, and yet he may believe that baptism is an efficient 
cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder 
the intention of conferring the sacrament. But if his 



THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS ^j 

faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he 
confers, although he beheve that no inward effect is caused 
by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the 
Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that 
which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief not- 
withstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, 
albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention 
suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (A. 8 ad 2) 
the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church 
by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is made 
good. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Some heretics in conferring sacraments do 
not observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these 
confer neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacra- 
ment. — But some do observe the form prescribed by the 
Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament but not 
the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are 
outwardly cut off from the Church; because from the very 
fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he 
sins ; and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect 
of the sacrament. Wherefore Augustine (Fulgentius, — 
De Fide ad Pet.) says: Be well assured and have no doubt 
whatever that those who are baptized outside the Church, unless 
they come back to the Church, will reap disaster from their 
Baptism. In this sense Pope Leo says that the light of the 
sacraments was extinguished in the Church of Alexandria ; 
viz., in regard to the reality of the sacrament, not as to the 
sacrament itself. 

Cyprian, however, thought that heretics do not confer 
even the sacrament: but in this respect we do not lollow 
his opinion. Hence Augustine says (De unico Baptismo 
xiii.) : Though the martyr Cyprian refused to recognize Baptism 
conferred by heretics or schismatics, yet so great are his merits, 
culminating in the crown of martyrdom, that the light of his 
charity dispels the darkness of his fault, and if anything needed 
pruning, the sickle of his passion ciit it off. 

Reply Obj. 3. The power of administering the sacraments 
belongs to the spiritual character which is indelible, as 



y^ THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 64. Art. 10 

explained above (Q. LXIIL, A. 3). Consequently, if a 
man be suspended by the Church, or excommunicated or 
degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring sacra- 
ments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore 
he does indeed confer the sacrament, but he sins in so doing. 
He also sins that receives a sacrament from such a man: 
so that he does not receive the reality of the sacrament, 
unless ignorance excuses him. 



Tenth Article. 

whether the validity of a sacrament requires a 
good intention in the minister ? 

Wc proceed thus to the Tenth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the validity of a sacrament 
requires a good intention in the minister. For the minister's 
intention should be in conformity with the Church's intention, 
as explained above (A. 8 ad i). But the intention of the 
Church is always good. Therefore the validity of a sacra- 
ment requires of necessity a good intention in the minister. 

Ohj. 2. Further, a perverse intention seems worse than 
a playful one. But a playful intention destroys a sacra- 
ment: for instance, if someone were to baptize anybody 
not seriously but in fun. Much more, therefore, does a 
perverse intention destroy a sacrament : for instance, if some- 
body were to baptize a man in order to kill him afterwards. 

Ohj. 3. Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole 
work, according to Luke xi. 34 : // thy eye he evil, thy whole 
hody will he darksome. But the sacraments of Christ cannot 
be contaminated by evil men; as Augustine says against 
Petilian (Cont. Litt. Petil. ii.). Therefore it seems that, 
if the minister's intention is perverse, the sacrament is 
invalid. 

On the contrary, A perverse intention belongs to the 
wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the 
minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, 
does his perverse intention. 

/ answer that, The minister's intention may be perverted 



THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS 79 

in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament : for instance, 
when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to 
make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes 
away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be mani- 
fested outwardly. 

Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as 
to something that follows the sacrament: for instance, a 
priest may intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to 
abuse her ; or to consecrate the Body of Christ, so as to use 
it for sorcery. And because that which comes first does 
not depend on that which follows, consequently such a 
perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the 
minister himself sins grievously in having such an inten- 
tion. 

Reply Ohj. i. The Church has a good intention both as 
to the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: 
but it is the former intention that perfects the sacrament, 
while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect. Conse- 
quently, the minister who conforms his intention to the 
Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, 
perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for him- 
self. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The intention of mimicry or fun excludes 
the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity 
of a sacrament. Consequently, there is no comparison. 

Reply Ohj. 3. A perverse intention perverts the action of 
the one who has such an intention, not the action of another. 
Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister per- 
verts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so 
far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he is. It 
is just as if the servant {minister) of some man were to 
carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas 
his master had commanded him with a good intention to 
do so. 



QUESTION LXV. 

OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS. 

{In Four A rticles.) 

We have now to consider the number of the sacraments: 
and concerning this there are four points of inquiry: 
(i) Whether there are seven sacraments ? (2) The order 
of the sacraments among themselves. (3) Their mutual 
comparison. (4) Whether all the sacraments are necessary 
for salvation ? 

First Article, 
whether there should be seven sacraments ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that there ought not to be seven 
sacraments. For the sacraments derive their efficacy 
from the Divine power, and the power of Christ's Passion. 
But the Divine power is one, and Christ's Passion is one; 
since by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are 
sanctified (Heb. x. 14). Therefore there should be but one 
sacrament. 

Obj. 2. Further, a sacrament is intended as a remedy for 
the defect caused by sin. Now this is twofold, punishment 
and guilt. Therefore two sacraments would be enough. 

Obj. 3. Further, sacraments belong to the actions of the 
ecclesiastical hierarchy, as Dionysius explains {Eccl. Hier. v.). 
But, as he says, there are three actions of the ecclesiastical 
hierarchy, namely, to cleanse, to enlighten, to perfect. There- 
fore there should be no more than three sacraments. 

Obj. 4. Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust, xix.) 
that the sacraments of the New Law are less numerous than 

80 



OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS 8i 

those of the Old Law. But in the Old Law there was no 
sacrament corresponding to Confirmation and Extreme 
Unction. Therefore these should not be counted among 
the sacraments of the New Law. 

Ohj. 5. Further, lust is not more grievous than other sins, 
as we have made clear in the Second Part (L-IL, Q. LXXIV., 
A. 5; IL-IL, Q. CLIV., A. 3). But there is no sacrament 
instituted as a remedy for other sins. Therefore neither 
should matrimony be instituted as a remedy for lust. 

Ohj. 6. On the other hand, It seems that there should be 
more than seven sacraments. For sacraments are a kind 
of sacred sign. But in the Church there are many sanctifica- 
tions by sensible signs, such as Holy Water, the Consecration 
of Altars, and suchlike. Therefore there are more than 
seven sacraments. 

Ohj. 7. Further, Hugh of S. Victor {De Sacram. i.) says 
that the sacraments of the Old Law were oblations, tithes 
and sacrifices. But the Sacrifice of the Church is one 
sacrament, called the Eucharist. Therefore oblations also 
and tithes should be called sacraments. 

Ohj. 8. Further, there are three kinds of sin, original, 
mortal and venial. Now Baptism is intended as a remedy 
against original sin, and Penance against mortal sin. There- 
fore besides the seven sacraments, there should be another 
against venial sin. 

/ answer that, As stated above (Q. LXH., A. 5; Q. LXUL, 
A. i), the sacraments of the Church were instituted for a 
twofold purpose: namely, in order to perfect man in things 
pertaining to the worship of God according to the religion 
of Christian life, and to be a remedy against the defects 
caused by sin. And in either way it is becoming that 
there should be seven sacraments. 

For spiritual life has a certain conformity with the life 
of the body: just as other corporeal things have a certain 
likeness to things spiritual. Now a man attains perfection 
in the corporeal life in two ways: first, in regard to his own 
person; secondly, in regard to the whole community of the 
society in which he lives, for man is by nature a social 

III. 3 6 



82 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 65. Art. i 

animal. With regard to himself man is perfected in the 
life of the body, in two ways; first, directly (per se), i.e., 
by acquiring some vital perfection; secondly, indirectly 
{per accidens), i.e., by the removal of hindrances to life, 
such as ailments, or the like. Now the life of the body 
is perfected directly, in three ways. First, by generation 
whereby a man begins to be and to live : and corresponding 
to this in the spiritual life there is Baptism, which is a 
spiritual regeneration, according to Tit. iii. 5: By the laver 
of regeneration, etc. — Secondly, by growth whereby a man 
is brought to perfect size and strength: and corresponding 
to this in the spiritual life there is Confirmation, in which 
the Holy Ghost is given to strengthen us. Wherefore the 
disciples who were already baptized were bidden thus: 
Stay you in the city till you he endued with power from on 
high (Luke xxiv. 49). — Thirdly, by nourishment, whereby 
life and strength are preserved to man; and corresponding 
to this in the spiritual life there is the Eucharist. Where- 
fore it is said (John vi. 54) : Except you eat of the -flesh of the 
Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. 

And this would be enough for man if he had an impassible 
life, both corporally and spiritually; but since man is liable 
at times to both corporal and spiritual infirmity, i.e., sin, 
hence man needs a cure from his infirmity; which cure is 
twofold. One is the healing, that restores health: and 
corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Penance, 
according to Ps. xl. 5 : Heal my soul, for I have sinned against 
Thee. — The other is the restoration of former vigour by 
means of suitable diet and exercise: and corresponding to 
this in the spiritual life there is Extreme Unction, which 
removes the remainders of sin, and prepares man for final 
glory. Wherefore it is written (Jas. v. 15): And if he be 
in sins they shall be forgiven him. 

In regard to the whole community, man is perfected in 
two ways. First, by receiving power to rule the community 
and to exercise public acts: and corresponding to this in 
the spiritual life there is the sacrament of Order, according 
to the saying of Heb. vii. 27, that priests offer sacrifices 



OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS 83 

not for themselves only, but also for the people. — Secondly 
in regard to natural propagation. This is accomplished 
by Matrimony both in the corporal and in the spiritual life : 
since it is not only a sacrament but also a function of nature. 

We may likewise gather the number of the sacraments 
from their being instituted as a remedy against the defect 
caused by sin. For Baptism is intended as a remedy 
against the absence of spiritual life; Confirmation, against 
the infirmity of soul found in those of recent birth; the 
Eucharist, against the soul's proneness to sin; Penance, 
against actual sin committed after baptism; Extreme 
Unction against the remainders of sins, — of those sins, 
namely, which are not sufficiently removed by Penance, 
whether through negligence or through ignorance; Order, 
against divisions in the community; Matrimony, as a 
, remedy against concupiscence in the individual, and against 
the decrease in numbers that results from death. 

Some, again, gather the number of sacraments from a 
certain adaptation to the virtues and to the defects and 
penal effects resulting from sin. They say that Baptism 
corresponds to Faith, and is ordained as a remedy against 
original sin; Extreme Unction, to Hope, being ordained 
against venial sin; the Eucharist, to Charity, being ordained 
against the penal effect which is malice ; Order, to Prudence, 
being ordained against ignorance ; Penance, to Justice, being 
ordained against mortal sin; Matrimony, to Temperance, 
being ordained against concupiscence; Confirmation, to 
Fortitude, being ordained against infirmity. 

Reply Ohj. i. The same principal agent uses various in- 
struments unto various effects, in accordance with the 
thing to be done. In the same way the Divine power and 
the Passion of Christ work in us through the various sacra- 
ments as through various instruments. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Guilt and punishment are diversified both 
according to species, inasmuch as there are various species 
of guilt and punishment, and according to men's various 
states and habitudes. And in this respect it was necessary 
to have a number of sacraments, as explained above, 



84 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 65. Art. i 

Reply Ohj. 3. In hierarchical actions we must consider 
the agents, the recipients and the actions. The agents are 
the ministers of the Church; and to these the sacrament 
of Order belongs. — ^The recipients are those who approach 
the sacraments: and these are brought into being by 
Matrimony. — The actions are cleansing, enlightening, and 
perfecting. Mere cleansing, however, cannot be a sacra- 
ment of the New Law, which confers grace: yet it belongs 
to certain sacramentals, i.e. catechism and exorcism. But 
cleansing coupled with enlightening, according to Dionysius, 
belongs to Baptism; and, for him who falls back into sin, 
they belong secondarily to Penance and Extreme Unction. 
And perfecting, as regards power, which is, as it were, a 
formal perfection, belongs to Confirmation : while, as regards 
the attainment of the end, it belongs to the Eucharist. 

Reply Ohj. 4. In the sacrament of Confirmation we receive 
the fulness of the Holy Ghost in order to be strengthened; 
while in Extreme Unction man is prepared for the imme- 
diate attainment of glory ; and neither of these two purposes 
was becoming to the Old Testament. Consequently, 
nothing in the Old Law could correspond to these sacra- 
ments. Nevertheless, the sacraments of the Old Law were 
more numerous, on account of the various kinds of sacrifices 
and ceremonies. 

Reply Ohj. 5. There was need for a special sacrament to 
be applied as a remedy against venereal concupiscence: 
first because by this concupiscence, not only the person 
but also the nature is defiled: secondly, by reason of its 
vehemence whereby it clouds the reason. 

Reply Ohj. 6. Holy Water and other consecrated things 
are not called sacraments, because they do not produce the 
sacramental effect, which is the receiving of grace. They 
are, however, a kind of disposition to the sacraments: 
either by removing obstacles; thus holy water is ordained 
against the snares of the demons, and against venial sins: 
or by making things suitable for the conferring of a sacra- 
ment; thus the altar and vessels are consecrated through 
reverence for the Eucharist. 



i 



OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS 85 

Reply Ohj. 7. Oblations and tithes, both in the Law of 
nature and in the Law of Moses, were ordained not only for 
the sustenance of the ministers and the poor, but also 
figuratively; and consequently they were sacraments. 
But now they remain no longer as figures, and therefore 
they are not sacraments. 

Reply Ohj. 8. The infusion of grace is not necessary for 
the blotting out of venial sin. Wherefore, since grace is 
infused in each of the sacraments of the New Law, none 
of them was instituted directly against venial sin. This 
is taken away by certain sacramentals, for instance, Holy 
Water and suchlike. — Some, however, hold that Extreme 
Unction is ordained against venial sin. But of this we 
shall speak in its proper place (Suppl. xxx., A. i). 



Second Article. 

whether the order of the sacraments, as given 
above, is becoming ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — • 

Objection i. It seems that the order of the sacraments as 
given above is unbecoming. For according to the Apostle 
(i Cor. XV. 46), that was . . . first . . . which is natural, after- 
wards that which is spiritual. But man is begotten through 
Matrimony by a first and natural generation; while in 
Baptism he is regenerated as by a second and spiritual 
generation. Therefore Matrimony should precede Baptism. 

Obj. 2. Further, through the sacrament of Order man 
receives the power of agent in sacramental actions. But 
the agent precedes his action. Therefore Order should 
precede Baptism and the other sacraments. 

Obj. 3. Further, the Eucharist is a spiritual food; while 
Confirmation is compared to growth. But food causes, and 
consequently precedes, growth. Therefore the Eucharist 
precedes Confirmation. 

Obj. 4. Further, Penance prepares man for the Eucharist 
But a disposition precedes perfection. Therefore Penance 
should precede the Eucharist. 



86 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 65. Art. 2 

Ohj. 5. Further, that which is nearer the last end comes 
after other things. But, of all the sacraments. Extreme 
Unction is nearest to the last end which is Happiness. 
Therefore it should be placed last among the sacraments. 

On the contrary, The order of the sacraments, as given 
above^ is commonly adopted by all. 

/ answer that, The reason of the order among the sacra- 
ments appears from what has been said above (A. i). For 
just as unity precedes multitude, so those sacraments which 
are intended for the perfection of the individual, naturally 
precede those which are intended for the perfection of the 
multitude; and consequently the last place among the 
sacraments is given to Order and Matrimony, which are 
intended for the perfection of the multitude: while Matri- 
mony is placed after Order, because it has less participation 
in the nature of the spiritual life, to which the sacraments 
are ordained. Moreover, among things ordained to the 
perfection of the individual, those naturally come first 
which are ordained directly to the perfection of the spiritual 
life, and afterwards, those which are ordained thereto in- 
directly, viz., by removing some supervening accidental 
cause of harm; such are Penance and Extreme Unction: 
while, of these. Extreme Unction is naturally placed last, 
for it preserves the healing which was begun by Penance. 

Of the remaining three, it is clear that Baptism which 
is a spiritual regeneration, comes first; then Confirmation, 
which is ordained to the formal perfection of power; and 
after these the Eucharist which is ordained to final per- 
fection. 

Reply Ohj. i. Matrimony as ordained to natural life is 
a function of nature. But in so far as it has something 
spiritual it is a sacrament. And because it has the least 
amount of spirituality it is placed last. 

Reply Ohj. 2. For a thing to be an agent it must first of 
all be perfect in itself. Wherefore those sacraments by 
which a man is perfected in himself, are placed before the 
sacrament of Order, in which a man is made a perfecter of 
others. 



OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS ^7 

Reply Ohj. 3. Nourishment both precedes growth, as its 
cause; and follows it, as maintaining the perfection of size 
and power in man. Consequently, the Eucharist can be 
placed before Confirmation, as Dionysius places it (Eccl. 
Hier. iii. iv.), and can be placed after it, as the Master does 
(iv. 2, 8). 

Reply Ohj. 4. This argument would hold if Penance were 
required of necessity as a preparation to the Eucharist. 
But this is not true: for if anyone be without mortal sin, 
he does not need Penance in order to receive the Eucharist. 
Thus it is clear that Penance is an accidental preparation 
to the Eucharist, that is to say, sin being supposed. Where- 
fore it is written in the last chapter of the second Book of 
Paralipomenon (cf. 2 Paral. xxxiii. 18)*: Thou, Lord of 
the righteous, didst not impose penance on righteous men. 

Reply Ohj. 5. Extreme Unction, for this very reason, is 
given the last place among those sacraments which are 
ordained to the perfection of the individual. 

Third Article. 

whether the eucharist is the greatest of the 

sacraments ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — • 

Objection i . It seems that the Eucharist is not the principal 
of the sacraments. For the common good is of more account 
than the good of the individual (i Ethic, ii.). But Matri 
mony is ordained to the common good of the human race 
by means of generation: whereas the sacrament of the 
Eucharist is ordained to the private good of the recipient. 
Therefore it is not the greatest of the sacraments. 

Ohj. 2. Further, those sacraments, seemingly, are greater, 
which are conferred by a greater minister. But the sacra- 
ments of Confirmation and Order are conferred by a bishop 
only, who is a greater minister than a mere minister such 

* The words quoted are from the apocryphal Prayer of Manasses, 
which, before the Council of Trent, was to be found inserted in some 
Latin copies of the Bible. 



88 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 65. Art. 3 

as a priest, by whom the sacrament of the Eucharist is 
conferred. Therefore those sacraments are greater. 

Ohj. 3, Further, those sacraments are greater that have 
the greater power. But some of the sacraments imprint a 
character — viz., Baptism, Confirmation and Order; whereas 
the Eucharist does not. Therefore those sacraments are 
greater. 

Ohj. 4. Further, that seems to be greater, on which others 
depend without its depending on them. But the Eucharist 
depends on Baptism : since no one can receive the Eucharist 
except he has been baptized. Therefore Baptism is greater 
than the Eucharist. 

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii.) that 
No one receives hierarchical perfection save by the most God- 
like Eucharist. Therefore this sacrament is greater than 
all the others and perfects them. 

/ answer that, Absolutely speaking, the sacrament of the 
Eucharist is the greatest of all the sacraments: and this 
may be shown in three ways. First of all because it con- 
tains Christ Himself substantially: whereas the other sacra- 
ments contain a certain instrumental power which is a 
share of Christ's power, as we have shown above (Q. LXIL, 
A. 4 (^(i 3, A. 5). Now, that which is essentially such is always 
of more account than that which is such by participation. 

Secondly, this is made clear by considering the relation 
of the sacraments to one another. For all the other sacra- 
ments seem to be ordained to this one as to their end. For 
it is manifest that the sacrament of Order is ordained to the 
consecration of the Eucharist : and the sacrament of Baptism 
to the reception of the Eucharist : while a man is perfected 
by Confirmation, so as not to fear to abstain from this 
sacrament. By Penance and Extreme Unction mail is pre- 
pared to receive the Body of Christ worthily. And Matri- 
mony, at least in its signification, touches this sacrament; 
in so far as it signifies the union of Christ with the Church, 
of which union the Eucharist is a figure : hence the Apostle 
says (Eph. v. 32): This is a great sacrament : but I speak in 
Christ and in the Church. 



OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS 89 

Thirdly, this is made clear by considering the rites of the 
sacraments. For nearly all the sacraments terminate in the 
Eucharist, as Dionysius says {Eccl. Hier. \\i.): thus those 
who have been ordained receive Holy Communion, as also 
do those who have been baptized, if they be adults. 

The remaining sacraments may be compared to one 
another in several ways. For on the ground of necessity, 
Baptism is the greatest of the sacraments ; while from the 
point of view of perfection, Order comes first; while Con- 
firmation holds a middle place. The sacraments of Penance 
and Extreme Unction are on a degree inferior to those men- 
tioned above; because, as stated above (A. 2), they are 
ordained to the Christian life, not directly, but accidentally, 
as it were, that is to say, as remedies against supervening 
defects. And among these. Extreme Unction is compared 
to Penance, as Confirmation to Baptism; in such a way, 
that Penance is more necessary, whereas Extreme Unction 
is more perfect. 

Reply Ohj. i. Matrimony is ordained to the common good 
as regards the body. But the common spiritual good of the 
whole Church is contained substantially in the sacrament 
itself of the Eucharist. 

Reply Ohj. 2. By Order and Confirmation the faithful of 
Christ are deputed to certain special duties; and this can 
be done by the prince alone. Consequently the conferring 
of these sacraments belongs exclusively to a bishop, who 
is, as it were, a prince in the Church. But a man is not 
deputed to any duty by the sacrament of the Eucharist, 
rather is this sacrament the end of all duties, as stated above. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The sacramental character, as stated above 
(Q. LXIIL, A. 3), is a kind of participation in Christ's 
priesthood. Wherefore the sacrament that unites man to 
Christ Himself, is greater than a sacrament that imprints 
Christ's character. 

Reply Ohj. 4. This argument proceeds on the ground of 
necessity. For thus Baptism, being of the greatest neces- 
sity, is the greatest of the sacraments, just as Order and 
Confirmation have a certain excellence considered in their 



90 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 65. Art. 4 

administration; and Matrimony by reason of its significa- 
tion. For there is no reason why a thing should not be 
greater from a certain point of view which is not greater 
absolutely speaking. 



Fourth Article. 

whether all the sacraments are necessary for 

salvation ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — • 

Objection i. It seems that all the sacraments are neces- 
sary for salvation. For what is not necessary seems to be 
superfluous. But no sacrament is superfluous, because God 
does nothing without a purpose (De Coelo et Mundo, i.). 
Therefore all the sacraments are necessary for salvation. 

Ohj. 2. Further, just as it is said of Baptism (John iii. 5) : 
Unless a man he horn again of water and the Holy Ghost, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God, so of the Eucharist is it 
said (John vi. 54) : Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of 
Man, and drink of His blood, you shall not have life in you. 
Therefore, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is the 
Eucharist. 

Ohj. 3. Further, a man can be saved without the sacra- 
ment of Baptism, provided that some unavoidable obstacle, 
and not his contempt for religion, debar him from the sacra- 
ment, as we shall state further on (Q. LXVIIL, A. 2). But 
contempt of religion in any sacrament is a hindrance to 
salvation. Therefore, in like manner, all the sacraments 
are necessary for salvation. 

On the contrary. Children are saved by Baptism alone 
without the other sacraments. 

/ answer that. Necessity of end, of which we speak now, 
is twofold. First, a thing may be necessary so that without 
it the end cannot be attained; thus food is necessary for 
human life. And this is simple necessity of end. Secondly, 
a thing is said to be necessary, if, without it, the end cannot 
be attained so becomingly : thus a horse is necessary for a 
journey. But this is not simple necessity of end. 



OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS 91 

In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salva- 
tion. Two of them are necessary to the individual; 
Baptism, simply and absolutely; Penance, in the case of 
mortal sin committed after Baptism; while the sacrament 
of Order is necessary to the Church, since where there is no 
governor the people shall fall (Prov. xi. 14). 

But in the second way the other sacraments are necessary. 
For in a sense Confirmation perfects Baptism; Extreme 
Unction perfects Penance ; while Matrimony, by multiplying 
them, preserves the numbers in the Church. 

Reply Obj. i. For a thing not to be superfluous it is 
enough if it be necessary either in the first or the second 
way. It is thus that the sacraments are necessary, as stated 
above. 

Reply Obj. 2. These words of Our Lord are to be understood 
of spiritual, and not of merely sacramental, eating, as 
Augustine explains (Tract, xxvi. super Joan.). 

Reply Obj. 3. Although contempt of any of the sacra- 
ments is a hindrance to salvation, yet it does not amount 
to contempt of the sacrament, if anyone does not trouble 
to receive a sacrament that is not necessary for salvation. 
Else those who do not receive Orders, and those who do 
not contract Matrimony, would be guilty of contempt of 
those sacraments. 



QUESTION LXVI. 

OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. 

{In Twelve Articles.) 

We have now to consider each sacrament specially: 
(i) Baptism: (2) Confirmation: (3)^ the Eucharist: (4) Pen- 
ance: (5) Extreme Unction: (6) Order: (7) Matrimony. 

Concerning the first, our consideration will be twofold: 
(i) Of Baptism itself: (2) of things preparatory to Baptism. 

Concerning the first, four points arise for our considera- 
tion: (i) Things pertaining to the sacrament of Baptism: 
(2) The minister of this sacrament: (3) The recipients of this 
sacrament: (4) The effect of this sacrament. 

Concerning the first there are twelve points of inquiry: 
(i) What is Baptism ? Is it a washing ? (2) Of the in- 
stitution of this sacrament. (3) Whether water be the 
proper matter of this sacrament ? (4) Whether plain water 
be required ? (5) Whether this be a suitable form of this 
sacrament ; — / baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? (6) Whether one could 
baptize with this form ; — / baptize thee in the name of 
Christ ? (7) Whether immersion is necessary for Baptism ? 
(8) Whether trine immersion is necessary ? (9) Whether 
Baptism can be reiterated ? (10) Of the Baptismal rite. 
(11) Of the various kinds of Baptism. (12) Of the com- 
parison between various Baptisms. 

First Article, 
whether baptism is the mere washing ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 
Objection i. It seems that Baptism is not the mere 
washing. For the washing of the body is something 

92 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 93 

transitory: but Baptism is something permanent. There- 
fore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is it the 
regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment, as 
Damascene says (De Fide Orthod. iv.). 

Ohj. 2. Further, Hugh of St. Victor says {De Sacram. ii.) 
that Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting 
out of sins. But the washing itself is not water, but a certain 
use of water. 

Obj. 3. Further, Augustine says {Tract. Ixxx. super foan.) : 
The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament. 
Now, the element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the 
water and not the washing. 

On the contrary, it is written (Ecclus. xxxiv. 30) : He that 
washeth himself {baptizatur) after touching the dead, if he 
touch him again, what does his washing avail ? It seems, 
therefore, that Baptism is the washing or bathing. 

/ answer that. In the sacrament of Baptism, three things 
may be considered: namely, that which is sacrament only ; 
that which is reality and sacrament ; and that which is 
reality only. That which is sacrament only, is something 
visible and outward; the sign, namely, of the inward effect: 
for such is the very nature of a sacrament. And this out- 
ward something that can be perceived by the sense is both 
the water itself and its use, which is the washing. Hence 
some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament: 
which seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from 
Hugh of St. Victor. For in the general definition of a sacra- 
ment he says that it is a material element : and in defining 
Baptism he says it is water . 

But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the 
New Law effect a certain sanctification, there the sacrament 
is completed where the sanctification is completed. Now, 
the sanctification is not completed in water; but a certain 
sanctifying instrumental virtue, not permanent but transient, 
passes from the water, in which it is, into man who is the 
subject of true sanctification. Consequently the sacrament 
is not completed in the very water, but in applying the 
water to man — i.e., in the washing. Hence the Master 



94 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. i 

(iv. 3) says that Baptism is the outward washing of the body 
done together with the prescribed form of words. 

The Baptismal character is both reahty and sacrament: 
because it is something real signified by the outward wash- 
ing; and a sacramental sign of the inward justification: and 
this last is the reality only, in this sacrament — namely, the 
reality signified and not signifying. 

Reply Obj. i. That which is both sacrament and reality — 
i.e., the character — ^and that which is reality only — i.e., the 
inward justification — remain: the character remains and is 
indelible, as stated above (Q. LXIIL, A. 5); the justifica- 
tion remains, but can be lost. Consequently Damascene 
defined Baptism, not as to that which is done outwardly, 
and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is inward. 
Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the char- 
acter — namely, seal and safeguarding ; inasmuch as the 
character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned, 
safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things 
as pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament — 
namely, regeneration which refers to the fact that man by 
being baptized begins the new life of righteousness ; and 
enlightenment, which refers especially to faith, by which 
man receives spiritual life, according to Habac.ii. (Heb. x. 38 ; 
cf. Habac. ii. 4) : But {My) just man liveth by faith ; and 
Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; whence it is 
called the Sacrament of Faith. Likewise Dionysius defined 
Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying 
(Eccl. Hier. ii.) that it is the principle that forms the habits 
of the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacra- 
ments ; and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is 
the universal end of all the sacraments, when he adds, 
preparing the way for us, whereby we mount to the repose of the 
heavenly kingdom ; and again as to the beginning of spiritual 
life, when he adds, the conferring of our most sacred and 
Godlike regeneration. 

Reply Obj. 2. As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of 
St. Victor on this question is not to be followed. — Never- 
theless the saying that Baptism is water may be verified in 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 95 

so far as water is the material principle of Baptism: and 
thus there would be causal predication. 

Reply Ohj. 3. When the words are added, the element 
becomes a sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, 
to whom the element is applied, by being used in washing 
him. Indeed, this is signified by those very words which 
are added to the element, when we say: / baptize thee, etc. 

Second Article, 
whether baptism was instituted after christ's passion ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that Baptism was instituted after 
Christ's Passion. For the cause precedes the effect. Now 
Christ's Passion operates in the sacraments of the New Law. 
Therefore Christ's Passion precedes the institution of the 
sacraments of the New Law: especially the sacrament of 
Baptism, since the Apostle says (Rom. vi. 3): All we, who 
are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death, etc. 

Obj. 2. Further, the sacraments of the New Law derive 
their efficacy from the mandate of Christ. But Christ gave 
the disciples the mandate of Baptism after His Passion 
and Resurrection, when He said: Going, teach ye all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc. (Matth. xxviii. 19). 
Therefore it seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's 
Passion. 

Obj. 3. Further, Baptism is a necessary sacrament, as 
stated above (Q. LXV., A. 4) : wherefore, seemingly, it must 
have been binding on man as soon as it was instituted. 
But before Christ's Passion men were not bound to be 
baptized: for Circumcision was still in force, which was 
supplanted by Baptism. Therefore it seems that Baptism 
was not instituted before Christ's Passion. 

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the 
Epiphany {Append. Serm., clxxxv.): As soon as Christ was 
plunged into the waters, the waters washed away the sins of 
all. But this was before Christ's Passion. Therefore 
Baptism was instituted before Christ's Passion. 



96 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. 2 

I answer that, Ks stated above (Q. LXIL, A. i), sacraments 
derive from their institution the power of conferring grace. 
Wherefore it seems that a sacrament is then instituted, when 
it receives the power of producing its effect. Now Baptism 
received this power when Christ was baptized. Conse- 
quently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we consider 
it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this sacra- 
ment was proclaimed to mankind after the Passion and 
Resurrection. First, because Christ's Passion put an end 
to the figurative sacraments, which were supplanted by 
Baptism and the other sacraments of the New Law. 
Secondly, because by Baptism man is made conformable to 
Christ's Passion and Resurrection, in so far as he dies to sin 
and begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently 
it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise again, before proclaim- 
ing to man his obligation of conforming himself to Christ's 
Death and Resurrection. 

Reply Ohj. i. Even before Christ's Passion, Baptism, 
inasmuch as it foreshadowed it, derived its efficacy there- 
from; but not in the same way as the sacraments of the 
Old Law. For these were mere figures: whereas Baptism 
derived the power of justifying from Christ Himself, to 
Whose power the Passion itself owed its saving virtue. 

Reply Ohj. 2. It was not meet that men should be re- 
stricted to a number of figures by Christ, Who came to 
fulfil and replace the figure by His reality. Wherefore 
before His Passion He did not make Baptism obligatory as 
soon as it was instituted; but wished men to become accus- 
tomed to its use; especially in regard to the Jews, to whom 
all things were figurative, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. 
iv.). But after His Passion and Resurrection He made 
Baptism obligatory, not only on the Jews, but also on the 
Gentiles, when He gave the commandment: Going, teach 
ye all nations. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Sacraments are not obligatory except when 
we are commanded to receive them. And this was not 
before the Passion, as stated above. For Our Lord's words 
to Nicodemus (John iii. 5), Unless a man he horn again of 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 97 

water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God, seem to refer to the future rather than to the present. 



Third Article, 
whether water is the proper matter of baptism ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that water is not the proper matter 
of Baptism. For Baptism, according to Dionysius (Eccl, 
Hier. v.) and Damascene {De Fide Orthod. iv.), has a 
power of enhghtening. But enhghtenment is a special 
characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism should be con- 
ferred with fire rather than with water: and all the more 
since John the Baptist said when foretelling Christ's 
Baptism (Matth. iii. 11): He shall baptize you in the Holy 
Ghost and fire. 

Obj. 2. Further, the washing away of sins is signified 
in Baptism. But many other things besides water are 
employed in washing, such as wine, oil, and suchlike. 
Therefore Baptism can be conferred with these also; and 
consequently water is not the proper matter of Baptism. 

Obj. 3. Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed 
from the side of Christ hanging on the cross, as stated above 
(Q. LXIL, A. 5). But not only water flowed therefrom, 
but also blood. Therefore it seems that Baptism can also 
be conferred with blood. And this seems to be more in 
keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written 
(Apoc. i. 5) : {Who) washed us from our sins in His own blood. 

Obj. 4. Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, 
iv. 3) and Bede (Exposit. in Luc. iii. 21) say, Christ, by the 
touch of His most pure fiesh, endowed the waters with a re- 
generating and cleansing virtue. But all waters are not con- 
nected with the waters of the Jordan which Christ touched 
with His flesh. Consequently it seems that Baptism cannot 
be conferred with any water; and therefore water, as such, 
is not the proper matter of Baptism. 

Obj. 5. Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter 
of Baptism, there would be no need to do anything to 

"1. 3 7 



98 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. 3 

the water before using it for Baptism. But in solemn 
Baptism the water which is used for baptizing, is exorcized 
and blessed. Therefore it seems that water, as such, is 
not the proper matter of Baptism. 

On the contrary, Our Lord said (John iii. 5) : Unless a man 
he horn again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God. 

I answer that, By Divine institution water is the proper 
matter of Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of 
the very nature of Baptism, which is a regeneration unto 
spiritual life. And this answers to the nature of water in a 
special degree ; wherefore seeds, from which all living things 
— -viz., plants and animals — -are generated, are moist and 
akin to water. For this reason certain philosophers held 
that water is the first principle of all things. 

Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which 
the properties of water correspond. For by reason of its 
moistness it cleanses; and hence it fittingly signifies and 
causes the cleansing from sins. By reason of its coolness 
it tempers superfluous heat : wherefore it fittingly mitigates 
the concupiscence of the fomes. By reason of its trans- 
parency, it is susceptive of light; hence its adaptability to 
Baptism as the sacrament of Faith. 

Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the 
mysteries of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as 
Chrysostom says {Hom. xxv. in Joan.) on John iii. 5, 
Unless a man he horn again, etc.. When we dip our heads 
under the water as in a kind of tomh, our old man is huried, 
and heing submerged is hidden helow, and thence he rises 
again renewed. 

Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, 
it is a matter suitable to our need of this sacrament : for it 
can easily be obtained everywhere. 

Reply Ohj. i. Fire enlightens actively. But he who is 
baptized does not become an enlightener, but is enlightened 
by faith, which cometh hy hearing (Rom. x. 17). Conse- 
quently water is more suitable, than fire, for Baptism. 

But when we find it said: He shall baptize you in the 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 99 

Holy Ghost and fire, we may understand fire, as Jerome says 
{In Matth. ii.), to mean the Holy Ghost, Who appeared 
above the disciples under the form of fiery tongues (Acts ii. 3). 
— Orwemayunderstand it to mean tribulation, asChrysostom 
says (Horn. iii. in Matth.): because tribulation washes away 
sin, and tempers concupiscence. — Or again, as Hilary says 
{Super Matth. ii.) that when we have been baptized in the Holy 
Ghost, we still have to be perfected by the fire of the judgment. 

Reply Obj. 2. Wine and oil are not so commonly used for 
washing, as water. Neither do they wash so efficiently: 
for whatever is washed with them, contracts a certain smell 
therefrom; which is not the case if water be used. More- 
over, they are not so universal or so abundant as water. 

Reply Obj. 3. Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us; 
blood, to redeem us. Wherefore blood belongs to the sacra- 
ment of the Eucharist, while water belongs to the sacra- 
ment of Baptism. Yet this latter sacrament derives its 
cleansing virtue from the power of Christ's blood. 

Reply Obj. 4. Christ's power flowed into all waters, by 
reason of, not connection of place, but likeness of species, 
as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany {Append. 
Serm. cxxxv.) : The blessing that flowed from the Saviour's 
Baptism, like a mystic river, swelled the course of every 
stream, and filled the channels of every spring. 

Reply Obj. 5. The blessing of the water is not essential 
to Baptism, but belongs to a certain solemnity, whereby the 
devotion of the faithful is aroused, and the cunning of the 
devil hindered from impeding the baptismal effect. 

Fourth Article, 
whether plain water is necessary for baptism ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that plain water is not necessary for 
Baptism. For the water which we have is not plain water; 
as appears especially in sea- water, in which there is a con- 
siderable proportion of the earthly element, as the Philoso- 
pher shows {Meteor, ii.). Yet this water may be used for 



100 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. 4 

Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not necessary 
for Baptism. 

Obj. 2. Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, 
chrism is poured into the water. But this seems to take 
away the purity and plainness of the water. Therefore 
pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism. 

Obj. 3. Further, the water that flowed from the side of 
Christ hanging on the cross was a figure of Baptism, as 
stated above (A. 3 ad 3). But that water, seemingly, was 
not pure, because the elements do not exist actually in a 
mixed body, such as Christ's. Therefore it seems that pure 
or plain water is not necessary for Baptism. 

Obj. 4. Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for 
it has the properties of heating and drying, which are con- 
trary to those of water. Nevertheless it seems that lye can 
be used for Baptism; for the water of the Baths can be so 
used, which has filtered through a sulphurous vein, just as 
lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it seems that plain 
water is not necessary for Baptism. 

Obj. 5. Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as 
chemical waters are distilled from certain bodies. But 
seemingly, suchlike waters may be used in Baptism; just 
as rain-water, which is distilled from vapours. Since, 
therefore, such waters are not pure and plain water, it seems 
that pure and plain water is not necessary for Baptism. 

On the contrary, The proper matter of Baptism is water, as 
stated above (A. 3). But plain water alone has the nature of 
water. Therefore pure plain water is necessary for Baptism. 

/ answer that, Water may cease to be pure or plain water 
in two ways: first, by being mixed with another body; 
econdly, by alteration. And each of these may happen in a 
twofold manner; artificially and naturally. Now art fails 
in the operation of nature: because nature gives the sub- 
stantial form, which art cannot' give ; for whatever form 
is given by art is accidental; except perchance when art 
applies a proper agent to its proper matter, as fire to a 
combustible; in which manner animals are produced from 
certain things by way of putrefaction. 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM loi 

Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, 
whether by mixture or by alteration, the water's nature is 
not changed. Consequently such water can be used for 
Baptism: unless perhaps such a small quantity of water 
be mixed artificially with a body that the compound is 
something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than 
water, and diluted wine is wine rather than water. 

But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the 
nature of the water; and this is when by a natural process 
water enters into the substance of a mixed body: thus 
water changed into the juice of the grape is wine, wherefore 
it has not the nature of water. Sometimes, however, there 
may be a natural change of the water, without destruction 
of species : and this, both by alteration, as we may see in the 
case of water heated by the sun ; arid by mixture, as when 
the water of a river has become muddy by being mixed 
with particles of earth. 

We must therefore say that any water may be used for 
Baptism, no matter how much it may be changed, as long 
as the species of water is not destroyed; but if the species 
of water be destroyed, it cannot be used for Baptism. 

Reply Ohj. i. The change in sea-water and in other waters 
which we have to hand, is not so great as to destroy the 
species of water. And therefore such waters may be used 
for Baptism. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Chrism does not destroy the nature of the 
water by being mixed with it: just as neither is water 
changed wherein meat and the like are boiled : except the 
substance boiled be so dissolved that the liquor be of a 
nature foreign to water; in this we may be guided by the 
specific gravity (spissitudine). If, however, from the liquor 
thus thickened plain water be strained, it can be used for 
Baptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud 
cannot be used for baptizing. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The water which flowed from the side of 
Christ hanging on the cross, was not the phlegmatic humour, 
as some have supposed. For a liquid of this kind cannot 
be used for Baptism, as neither can the blood of an animal, 



102 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. 4 

or wine, or any liquid extracted from plants. It was pure 
water gushing forth miraculously like the blood from a dead 
body, to prove the reality of Our Lord's body, and confute 
the error of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four 
elements, showing Christ's body to be composed of the 
four elements; blood, proving that it was composed of the 
four humours. 

Reply Ohj. 4. Baptism may be conferred with lye and 
the waters of Sulphur Baths: because suchlike waters are 
not incorporated, artificially or naturally, with certain mixed 
bodies, and suifer only a certain alteration by passing 
through certain bodies. 

Reply Ohj. 5. Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses: 
consequently it cannot be used for Baptism. For the same 
reason chemical waters cannot be used, as neither can wine. 
Nor does the comparison hold with rain-water, which for 
the most part is formed by the condensing of vapours, 
themselves formed from water, and contains a minimum 
of the liquid matter from mixed bodies ; which liquid matter 
by the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is trans- 
formed in this process of condensation into real water, a 
result which cannot be produced artificially. 

Consequently rain - water retains no properties of any 
mixed body ; which cannot be said of rose-water or chemical 
waters. 

Fifth Article. 

whether this be a suitable form of baptism: — i bap- 
tize thee in the name of the father, and of the 
son, and of the holy ghost ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that this is not a suitable form of 
Baptism : / baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For action should be ascribed 
to the principal agent rather than to the minister. Now 
the minister of a sacrament acts as an instrument, as stated 
above (Q. LXIV., A. i) ; while the principal agent in Baptism 
is Christ, according to John i. 33, He upon Whom thou shalt 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 103 

see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is 
that haptizeth. It is therefore unbecoming for the minister 
to say, / baptize thee : the more so that Ego (/) is understood 
in the word haptizo (I baptize), so that it seems redundant. 

Ohj. 2. Further, there is no need for a man who does an 
action, to make mention of the action done; thus he who 
teaches, need not say, / teach you. Now Our Lord gave 
at the same time the precepts both of baptizing and of 
teaching, when He said (Matth. xxviii. 19) : Going, teach ye 
all nations, etc. Therefore there is no need in the form 
of Baptism to mention the action of baptizing. 

Ohj. 3. Further, the person baptized sometimes does not 
understand the words; for instance, if he be deaf, or a child. 
But it is useless to address such a one; according to Ecclus. 
xxxii. 6: Where there is no hearing, pour not out words. 
Therefore it is unfitting to address the person baptized with 
these words : / baptize thee. 

Obj. 4. Further, it may happen that several are baptized 
by several at the same time; thus the apostles on one day 
baptized three thousand, and on another, five thousand 
(Acts ii., iv.). Therefore the form of Baptism should not 
be limited to the singular number in the words, / baptize 
thee : but one should be able to say. We baptize you. 

Obj. 5. Further, Baptism derives its power from Christ's 
Passion. But Baptism is sanctified by the form. Therefore 
it seems that Christ's Passion should be mentioned in the 
form of Baptism. 

Obj. 6. Further, a name signifies a thing's property. But 
there are three Personal Properties of the Divine Persons, 
as stated in the First Part (Q. XXXII., A. 3). Therefore we 
should not say, in the name, but in the names of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 

Obj. 7. Further, the Person of the Father is designated 
not only by the name Father, but also by that of Unbegotten 
and Begetter ; and the Son by those of Word, Image, and 
Begotten ; and the Holy Ghost by those of Gift, Love, and 
the Proceeding One. Therefore it seems that Baptism is 
valid if conferred in these names. 



104 THE " SIJMMA THEOLOGlCA '" Q. 66. Art. 5 

On the contrary, Our Lord said (Matth. xxviii. 19) : Going 
. . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 

I answer that, Baptism receives its consecration from its 
form, according to Eph. v. 26: Cleansing it by the laver of 
water in the word of life. And Augustine says {De Unico 
Baptismo iv. ) that Baptism is consecrated by the words of 
the Gospel. Consequently the cause of Baptism needs to be 
expressed in the baptismal form. Now this cause is two- 
fold; the principal cause from which it derives its virtue, 
and this is the Blessed Trinity ; and the instrumental cause — 
viz., the minister who confers the sacrament outwardly. 
Wherefore both causes should be expressed in the form of 
Baptism. Now the minister is designated by the words, 
/ baptize thee ; and the principal cause in the words, in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
Therefore this is the suitable form of Baptism: / baptize 
thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost. 

Reply Obj. i. Action is attributed to an instrument as 
to the immediate agent ; but to the principal agent inasmuch 
as the instrument acts in virtue thereof. Consequently it 
is fitting that in the baptismal form the minister should be 
mentioned as performing the act of baptizing, in the words, 
/ baptize thee ; indeed. Our Lord attributed to the ministers 
the act of baptizing, when He said: Baptizing them, etc. 
But the principal cause is indicated as conferring the 
sacrament by His own power, in the words, in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : for 
Christ does not baptize without the Father and the Holy 
Ghost. 

The Greeks, however, do not attribute the act of bap- 
tizing to the minister, in order to avoid the error of those 
who in the past ascribed the baptismal power to the bap- 
tizers, saying (i Cor. i. 12): / am of Paul . . . and I of 
Cephas. Wherefore they use the form: May the servant 
of Christ, N . . . ., be baptized, in the name of the Father, etc. 
And since the action performed by the minister is expressed 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 105 

with the invocation of the Trinity, the sacrament is vahdly 
conferred. As to the addition of Ego in our form, it is not 
essential; but it is added in order to lay greater stress on 
the intention. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Since a man may be washed with water for 
several reasons, the purpose for which it is done must be 
expressed by the words of the form. And this is not done 
by saying : In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost ; because we are bound to do all things in 
that Name (Coloss. iii. 17). Wherefore unless the act of 
baptizing be expressed, either as we do, or as the Greeks do, 
the sacrament is not valid ; according to the decretal of 
Alexander IIL: // anyone dip a child thrice in the water in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
Amen, without saying, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, the child is 
not baptized. 

Reply Obj. 3. The words which are uttered in the sacra- 
mental forms, are said not merely for the purpose of sig- 
nification, but also for the purpose of efficiency, inasmuch 
as they derive efficacy from that Word, by Whom all 
things were made. Consequently they are becomingly 
addressed not only to men, but also to insensible creatures; 
for instance, when we say: / exorcize thee, creature salt 
(Roman Ritual). 

Reply Obj. 4. Several cannot baptize one at the same 
time : because an action is multiplied according to the number 
of the agents, if it be done perfectly by each. So that if 
two were to combine, of whom one were mute, and unable 
to utter the words, and the other were without hands, and 
unable to perform the action, they could not both baptize 
at the same time, one saying the words and the other per- 
forming the action. 

On the other hand, in a case of necessity, several could be 
baptized at the same time ; for no single one of them would 
receive more than one baptism. But it would be necessary, 
in that case, to say: / baptize ye. Nor would this be a 
change of form, because ye is the same as thee and thee. 



io6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. 5 

Whereas we does not mean / and I, but / and thou ; so that 
this would be a change of form. 

Likewise it would be a change of form to say, I baptize 
myself : consequently no one can baptize himself. For this 
reason did Christ choose to be baptized by John (Extra, 
De Baptismo et ejus effectu, cap. Debitum). 

Reply Obj. 5. Although Christ's Passion is the principal 
cause as compared to the minister, yet it is an instru- 
mental cause as compared to the Blessed Trinity. For 
this reason the Trinity is mentioned rather than Christ's 
Passion. 

Reply Obj. 6. Although there are three personal names of 
the three Persons, there is but one essential name. Now 
the Divine power which works in Baptism, pertains to the 
Essence ; and therefore we say, in the name, and not, in the 
names. 

Reply Obj. 7. Just as water is used in Baptism, because it 
is more commonly employed in washing, so for the purpose 
of designating the three Persons, in the form of Baptism, 
those names are chosen, which are generally used, in a 
particular language, to signify the Persons. Nor is the 
sacrament valid if conferred in any other names. 

Sixth Article. 

whether baptism can be conferred in the name 

of christ ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — • 

Objection i. It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the 
name of Christ. For just as there is one Faith, so is there 
one Baptism (Eph. iv. 5). But it is related (Acts viii. 12) 
that in the name of Jesus Christ they were baptized, both men 
and women. Therefore now also can Baptism be conferred 
in the name of Christ. 

Obj. 2. Further, Ambrose says {De Spir. Sanct. i.): // 
you mention Christ, you designate both the Father by Whom 
He was anointed, and the Son Himself, Who was anointed, 
and the Holy Ghost with Whom He was anointed. But 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 107 

Baptism can be conferred in the name of the Trinity : there- 
fore also in the name of Christ. 

Ohj. 3. Further, Pope Nicolas (I.), answering questions put 
to him by the Bulgars, said: Those who have been baptized 
in the name of the Trinity, or only in the name of Christ, as 
we read in the Acts of the Apostles (it is all the same, as 
Blessed Ambrose saith), must not be rebaptized. But they 
would be baptized again if they had not been validly bap- 
tized with that form. Therefore Baptism can be celebrated 
in the name of Christ by using this form: I baptize thee in 
the name of Christ. 

On the contrary, Pope Pelagius (II.) wrote to the Bishop 
Gaudentius: If any people living in your Worship'' s neigh- 
bourhood, avow that they have been baptized in the name of 
the Lord only, without any hesitation baptize them again in 
the name of the Blessed Trinity, when they come in quest of 
the Catholic Faith. Didymus, too, says (De Spir. Sanct. ii.) : 
// indeed there be such a one with a mind so foreign to faith 
as to baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid names — viz., of 
the three Persons — he baptizes invalidly. 

I answer that. As stated above (Q. LXIV., A. 3), the sacra- 
ments derive their efhcacy from Christ's institution. Con- 
sequently, if any of those things be omitted which Christ 
instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is invalid; save by 
special dispensation of Him Who did not bind His power to 
the sacraments. Now Christ commanded the sacrament of 
Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity. 
And consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation 
of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism. 

Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another 
is implied, as the name of the Son is implied in that of the 
Father, or that he who mentions the name of only one 
Person, may believe aright in the Three; because just as a 
sacrament requires sensible matter, so does it require a 
sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is 
not enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the 
Trinity be expressed in sensible words. For this reason at 
Christ's Baptism, wherein was the source of the sanctifica- 



io8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. 6 

tion of our Baptism, the Trinity was present in sensible 
signs: viz., the Father in the voice, the Son in the human 
nature, the Holy Ghost in the dove. 

Reply Ohj. i. It was by a special revelation from Christ 
that in the primitive Church the apostles baptized in the 
name of Christ ; in order that the name of Christ, which was 
hateful to Jews and Gentiles, might become an object of 
veneration, in that the Holy Ghost was given in Baptism 
at the invocation of that Name. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Ambrose here gives this reason why 
exception could, without inconsistency, be allowed in the 
primitive Church ; namely, because the whole Trinity is im- 
plied in the name of Christ, and therefore the form pre- 
scribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in its integrity, 
at least implicitly. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting 
the two authorities given in the preceding objections: where- 
fore the answer to this is clear from the two solutions given 
above. 

Seventh Article, 
whether immersion in water is necessary for 

BAPTISM ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 

Ohjection i. It seems that immersion in water is necessary 
for Baptism. Because it is written (Eph. iv. 5): One faith, 
one haptism. But in many parts of the world the ordinary 
way of baptizing is by immersion. Therefore it seems that 
there can be no Baptism without immersion. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the Apostle says (Rom. vi. 3, 4): All 
we who are haptized in Christ Jesus, arc baptized in His 
death : for we are huried together with Him, c y Baptism into 
death. But this is done by immersion : for Chrysostom says 
on John iii. 5: Unless a man he horn again of water and the 
Holy Ghost, etc. : When we dip our heads under the water as 
in a kind of tomh, our old man is huried, and heing sub- 
merged, is hidden helow, and thence he rises again renewed. 
Therefore it seems that immersion is essential to Baptism. 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 109 

Obj. 3. Further, if Baptism is valid without total immer- 
sion of the body, it would follow that it would be equally 
sufficient to pour water over any part of the body. But this 
seems unreasonable; since original sin, to remedy which 
is the principal purpose of Baptism, is not in only one part 
of the body. Therefore it seems that immersion is necessary 
for Baptism, and that mere sprinkling is not enough. 

On the contrary, It is written (Heb. x. 22) : Let us draw near 
with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled 
from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with clean 
water. 

I answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism water is put 
to the use of a washing of the body, whereby to signify the 
inward washing away of sins. Now washing may be done 
with water not only by immersion, but also by sprinkling 
or pouring. And, therefore, although it is safer to baptize 
by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, 
yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by 
pouring, according to Ezech. xxxvi. 25: / will pour upon 
you clean water, as also the Blessed Lawrence is related to 
have baptized. And this especially in cases of urgency: 
either because there is a great number to be baptized, as 
was clearly the case in Acts ii. and iv., where we read that 
on one day three thousand believed, and on another five 
thousand : or through there being but a small supply of water, 
or through feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold 
up the candidate for Baptism; or through feebleness of the 
candidate, whose life might be endangered by immersion. 
We must therefore conclude that immersion is not necessary 
for Baptism. 

Reply Obj. i. What is accidental to a thing does not 
diversify its essence. Now bodily washing with water is 
essential to Baptism: wherefore Baptism is called a laver, 
according to Eph. v. 26 : Cleansing it by the laver of water in 
the word of life. But that the washing be done this or that 
way, is accidental to Baptism. And consequently such 
diversity does not destroy the one-ness of Baptism. 

Reply Obj. 2. Christ's burial is more clearly represented 



no THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. 7 

by immersion: wherefore this manner of baptizing is more 
frequently in use and more commendable. Yet in the 
other ways of baptizing it is represented after a fashion, 
albeit not so clearly; for no matter how the washing is 
done, the body of a man, or some part thereof, is put under 
water, just as Christ's body was put under the earth. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The principal part of the body, especially 
in relation to the exterior members, is the head, wherein 
all the senses, both interior and exterior, flourish. And 
therefore, if the whole body cannot be covered with water, 
because of the scarcity of water, or because of some other 
reason, it is necessary to pour water over the head, in which 
the principle of animal life is made manifest. 

And although original sin is transmitted through the 
members that serve for procreation, yet those members are 
not to be sprinkled in preference to the head, because by 
Baptism the transmission of original sin to the offspring 
by the act of procreation is not deleted, but the soul is 
freed from the stain and debt of sin which it has contracted. 
Consequently that part of the body should be washed in 
preference, in which the works of the soul are made mani- 
fest. 

Nevertheless in the Old Law the remedy against original 
sin was affixed to the member of procreation; because He 
through Whom original sin was to be removed, was yet 
to be born of the seed of Abraham, whose faith was signified 
by circumcision according to Rom. iv. 11. 

Eighth Article, 
whether trine immersion is essential to baptism ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that trine immersion is essential to 
Baptism. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Symbol, 
addressed to the Neophytes: Rightly were you dipped three 
times, since you were baptized in the name of the Trinity. 
Rightly were you dipped three times, because you were bap- 
tized in the name of fesus Christ, Who on the third day rose 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM iii 

again from the dead. For that thrice repeated immersion 
reproduces the burial of the Lord, by which you were buried 
with Christ in Baptism. Now both seem to be essential to 
Baptism, namely, that in Baptism the Trinity of Persons 
should be signified, and that we should be conformed to 
Christ's burial. Therefore it seems that trine immersion 
is essential to Baptism. 

Obj. 2. Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from 
Christ's mandate. But trine immersion was commanded 
by Christ: for Pope Pelagius (IL) wrote to Bishop Gauden- 
tius : The Gospel precept given by Our Lord God Himself, Our 
Saviour Jesus Christ, admonishes us to confer the sacrament 
of Baptism to each one in the name of the Trinity and also 
with trine immersion. Therefore, just as it is essential to 
Baptism to call on the name of the Trinity, so is it essential 
to baptize by trine immersion. 

Obj. 3. Further, if trine immersion be not essential to 
Baptism, it follows that the sacrament of Baptism is con- 
ferred at the first immersion; so that if a second or third 
immersion be added, it seems that Baptism is conferred a 
second or third time; which is absurd. Therefore one im- 
mersion does not suffice for the sacrament of Baptism, and 
trine immersion is essential thereto. 

On the contrary, Gregory wrote to the Bishop Leander: 
It cannot be in any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with 
either a trine or a single immersion : since the Trinity can 
be represented in the three immersions, and the unity of the 
Godhead in one immersion. 

I answer that, As stated above (A. 7 ad i), washing with 
water is of itself required for Baptism, being essential to 
the sacrament: whereas the mode of washing is accidental 
to the sacrament. Consequently, as Gregory in the words 
above quoted explains, both single and trine immersion are 
lawful considered in themselves; since one immersion sig- 
nifies the oneness of Christ's death and of the Godhead; 
while trine immersion signifies the three days of Christ's 
burial, and also the Trinity of Persons. 

But for various reasons, according as the Church has 



112 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. 8 

ordained, one mode has been in practice, at one time, the 
other at another time. For since from the very earhest 
days of the Church some have had false notions concerning 
the Trinity, holding that Christ is a mere man, and that 
He is not called the Son of God or God except by reason of 
His merit, which was chiefly in His death ; for this reason they 
did not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but in memory 
of Christ's death, and with one immersion. And this was 
condemned in the early Church. Wherefore in the Apostolic 
Canons (xlix.) we read : // any priest or bishop confer 
baptism not with the trine immersion in the one administra- 
tion, but with one immersion, which baptism is said to be 
conferred by some in the death of the Lord, let him be deposed : 
for Our Lord did not say, ' Baptize ye in My death,'' but 
' In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost. '^ 

Later on, however, there arose the error of certain schis- 
matics and heretics who rebaptized: as Augustine {Super 
Joan., cf. De H acres. Ixix.) relates of the Donatists. 
Wherefore, in detestation of their error, only one immersion 
was ordered to be made, by the (fourth) council of Toledo, 
in the acts of which we read: In order to avoid the scandal 
of schism or the practice of heretical teaching, let us hold to 
the single baptismal immersion. 

But now that this motive has ceased, trine immersion 
is universally observed in Baptism: and consequently any- 
one baptizing otherwise would sin gravely, through not 
following the ritual of the Church. It would, however, be 
valid Baptism. 

Reply Obj. i. The Trinity acts as principal agent in 
Baptism. Now the likeness of the agent enters into the 
effect, in regard to the form and not in regard to the matter. 
Wherefore the Trinity is signified in Baptism by the words 
of the form. Nor is it essential for the Trinity to be signified 
by the manner in which the matter is used; although this 
is done to make the signification clearer. 

In like manner Christ's death is sufficiently represented 
in the one immersion. And the three days of His burial 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 113 

were not necessary for our salvation, because even if He 
had been buried or dead for one day, this would have been 
enough to consummate our redemption: yet those three 
days were ordained unto the manifestation of the reality 
of His death, as stated above (Q. LIIL, A. 2). It is there- 
fore clear that neither on the part of the Trinity, nor on 
the part of Christ's Passion, is the trine immersion essential 
to the sacrament. 

Reply Obj. 2. Pope Pelagius understood the trine immer- 
sion to be ordained by Christ in its equivalent ; in the sense 
that Christ commanded Baptism to be conferred in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Nor 
can we argue from the form to the use of the matter, as 
stated above (ad i). 

Reply Obj. 3. As stated above (Q. LXIV., A. 8), the in- 
tention is essential to Baptism. Consequently, one Baptism 
results from the intention of the Church's minister, who 
intends to confer one Baptism by a trine immersion. 
Wherefore Jerome says on Eph. iv. 5, 6: Though the Bap- 
tism — i.e., the immersion — be thrice repeated, on account of 
the mystery of the Trinity, yet it is reputed as one Baptism. 

If, however, the intention were to confer one Baptism 
at each immersion together with the repetition of the 
words of the form, it would be a sin, in itself, because it 
would be a repetition of Baptism. 

Ninth Article, 
whether baptism may be reiterated ? 

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that Baptism may be reiterated. 
For Baptism was instituted, seemingly, in order to wash 
away sins. But sins are reiterated. Therefore much more 
should Baptism be reiterated: because Christ's mercy 
surpasses man's guilt. 

Obj. 2. Further, John the Baptist received special com- 
mendation from Christ, Who said of him (Matth. xi. 11): 
There hath not risen, among them that are born of women, a 

III. 3 8 



114 THE '' SUMMA THF:0L0GICA " g. 66. Art. 9 

greater than John the Baptist. But those whom John had 
baptized were baptized again, according to Acts xix. 1-7, 
where it is stated that Paul rebaptized those who had 
received the Baptism of John, Much more, therefore, 
should those be rebaptized, who have been baptized by 
heretics or sinners. 

Obj. 3. Further, it was decreed in the Council of Nicaea 
(Can. xix.) that if any of the Paulianists or Catafhrygians 
should he converted to the Catholic Church, they were to he 
haptized : and this seemingly should be said in regard to 
other heretics. Therefore those whom the heretics have 
baptized, should be baptized again. 

Ohj. 4. Further, Baptism is necessary for salvation. But 
sometimes there is a doubt about the baptism of those who 
really have been baptized. Therefore it seems that they 
should be baptized again. 

Ohj. 5. Further, the Eucharist is a more perfect sacra- 
ment than Baptism, as stated above (Q. LXV., A. 3). 
But the sacrament of the Eucharist is reiterated. Much 
more reason, therefore, is there for Baptism to be reiterated. 

On the contrary, It is written (Eph. iv. 5): One Faith, one 
Baptism. 

I answer that. Baptism cannot be reiterated. 

First, because Baptism is a spiritual regeneration; inas- 
much as a man dies to the old life, and begins to lead the 
new life. Whence it is written (John iii. 5): Unless a man 
he horn again of water and the Holy Ghost, He cannot see 
(Vulg., enter into) the kingdom of God. Now one man can 
be begotten but once. Wherefore Baptism cannot be 
reiterated, just as neither can carnal generation. Hence 
Augustine says on John iii. 4: ' Can he enter a second time 
into his mother^ s womh and he horn again ' .* So thou, says 
he, must understand the hirth of the Spirit, as Nicodemus 
understood the hirth of the flesh. ... As there is no return 
to the womb, so neither is there to Baptism. 

Secondly, because we are haptized in Chrisfs death, by 
which we die unto sin and rise again unto newness of life 
(cf. Rom. vi. 3, 4). Now Christ died but once (ibid. 10). 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 115 

Wherefore neither should Baptism be reiterated. For this 
reason (Heb. vi. 6) is it said against some who wished to be 
baptized again : Crucifying again to themselves the Son of 
God ; on which the gloss observes : Chrisfs one death hallowed 
the one Baptism. 

Thirdly, because Baptism imprints a character, which 
is indelible, and is conferred with a certain consecration. 
Wherefore, just as other consecrations are not reiterated 
in the Church, so neither is Baptism. This is the view 
expressed by Augustine, who says [Contra Epist. Parmen. ii.) 
that the military character is not renewed : and that the 
sacrament of Christ is not less enduring than this bodily 
mark, since we see that not even apostates are deprived of 
Baptism, since when they repent and return they are not 
baptized anew. 

Fourthly, because Baptism is conferred principally as a 
remedy against original sin. Wherefore, just as original 
sin is not renewed, so neither is Baptism reiterated, for as 
it is written (Rom. v. 18), as hy the offence of one, unto all 
men to condemnation, so also hy the justice of one, unto all 
men to justification of life. 

Reply Ohj. i. Baptism derives its efficacy from Christ's 
Passion, as stated above (A. 2 ad i). Wherefore, just as 
subsequent sins do not cancel the virtue of Christ's Passion, 
so neither do they cancel Baptism, so as to call for its repe- 
tition. On the other hand the sin which hindered the effect 
of Baptism is blotted out on being submitted to Penance. 

Reply Ohj. 2. As Augustine says on John i. 33 : 'And I 
knew Him not ' .• Behold ; after fohn had hdptized, Baptism 
was administered ; after a murderer has baptized, it is not 
administered : because fohn gave his own Baptism ; the 
murderer, Chrisfs ; for that sacrament is so sacred, that not 
even a murderer^ s administration contaminates it. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The Paulianists and Cataphrygians used not 
to baptize in the name of the Trinity. Wherefore Gregory, 
writing to the Bishop Quiricus, says : Those heretics who are 
not baptized in the name of the Trinity, such as the Bonosians 
and Cataphrygians (who were of the same mind as the 



1x6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. 9 

Paulianists), since the former believe not that Christ is God 
(holding Him to be a mere man), while the latter, i.e., the 
Cataphrygians, are so perverse as to deem a mere man, viz., 
Montanus, to be the Holy Ghost : — all these are baptized when 
they come to holy Church, for the baptism which they received 
while in that state of error was no Baptism at all, not being 
conferred in the name of the Trinity, On the other hand, as 
set down in De Eccles. Dogm. xxii. : Those heretics who have 
been baptized in the confession of the name of the Trinity are 
to be received as already baptized when they come to the Catholic 
Faith. 

Reply Obj. 4. According to the Decretal of Alexander III. : 
Those about whose Baptism there is a doubt are to be baptized 
with these words prefixed to the form : ' // thou art baptized, 
I do not rebaptize thee ; but if thou art not baptized, I baptize 
thee^ etc. : for that does not appear to be repeated, which is 
not known to have been done. 

Reply Obj. 5. Both sacraments, viz., Baptism and the 
Eucharist, are a representation of Our Lord's death and 
Passion, but not in the same way. For Baptism is a com- 
memoration of Christ's death in so far as man dies with 
Christ, that he may be born again into a new life. But the 
Eucharist is a commemoration of Christ's death, in so far 
as the suffering Christ Himself is offered to us as the Paschal 
banquet, according to i Cor. v. 7, 8: Christ our pasch is 
sacrificed ; therefore let us feast. And forasmuch as man 
is born once, whereas he eats many times, so is Baptism 
given once, but the Eucharist frequently. 

Tenth Article. 

whether the church observes a sutfable rite in 

baptizing ? 

We proceed thus to the Tenth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the Church observes an un- 
suitable rite in baptizing. For as Chrysostom (Chromatius, 
in Matth. iii. 15) says: The waters of Baptism would never 
avail to purge the sins of them that believe, had they not been 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 117 

hallowed by the touch of Our Lord's body. Now this took 
place at Christ's Baptism, which is commemorated in the 
Feast of the Epiphany. Therefore solemn Baptism should 
be celebrated at the Feast of the Epiphany rather than on 
the eves of Easter and Whitsunday. 

Obj. 2. Further, it seems that several matters should 
not be used in the same sacrament. But water is used for 
washing in Baptism. Therefore it is unfitting that the 
person baptized should be anointed thrice with holy oil, 
first on the breast, and then between the shoulders, and a 
third time with chrism on the top of the head. 

Obj. 3. Further, in Christ Jesus . . . there is neither male 
nor female (Gal. iii. 28) . . . neither Barbarian nor Scythian 
(Col. iii. it), nor, in like manner, any other suchlike dis- 
tinctions. Much less, therefore, can a difference of clothing 
have any efficacy in the Faith of Christ. It is consequently 
unfitting to bestow a white garment on those who have 
been baptized. 

Obj. 4. Further, Baptism can be celebrated without such- 
like ceremonies. Therefore it seems that those mentioned 
above are superfluous; and consequently that they are un- 
suitably inserted by the Church in the baptismal rite. 

On the contrary, The Church is ruled by the Holy Ghost, 
Who does nothing inordinate. 

/ answer that, In the sacrament of Baptism something is 
done which is essential to the sacrament, and something 
which belongs to a certain solemnity of the sacrament. 
Essential, indeed, to the sacrament are both the form which 
designates the principal cause of the sacrament; and the 
minister who is the instrumental cause; and the use of 
the matter, namely, washing with water, which designates 
the principal sacramental effect. But all the other things 
which the Church observes in the baptismal rite, belong 
rather to a certain solemnity of the sacrament. 

And these, indeed, are used in conjunction with the 
sacrament for three reasons. First, in order to arouse the 
devotion of the faithful, and their reverence for the sacra" 
ment. For if there were nothing done but a mere washing 



ii8 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. io 

with water, without any solemnity, some might easily 
think it to be an ordinary washing. 

Secondly, for the instruction of the faithful. Because 
simple and unlettered folk need to be taught by some 
sensible signs, for instance, pictures and the like. And in 
this way by means of the sacramental ceremonies they are 
either instructed, or urged to seek the signification of such- 
like sensible signs. And consequently, since, besides the 
principal sacramental effect, other things should be known 
about Baptism, it was fitting that these also should be 
represented by some outward signs. 

Thirdly, because the power of the devil is restrained, by 
prayers, blessings, and the like, from hindering the sacra- 
mental effect. 

Reply Ohj. i. Christ was baptized on the Epiphany with 
the Baptism of John, as stated above (Q. XXXIX., A. 2); 
with which baptism, indeed, the faithful are not baptized, 
rather are they baptized with Christ's Baptism. This 
has its efficacy from the Passion of Christ, according to 
Rom. vi. 3 : We who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized 
in His death ; and in the Holy Ghost, according to John iii. 5 : 
Unless a man be horn again of water and the Holy Ghost. 
Therefore it is that solemn Baptism is held in the Church, 
both on Easter Eve, when we commemorate Our Lord's 
burial and resurrection; for which reason Our Lord gave 
His disciples the commandment concerning Baptism as 
related by Matthew (xxviii. 19): — and on Whitsun-eve, 
when the celebration of the Feast of the Holy Ghost begins ; 
for which reason the apostles are said to have baptized 
three thousand on the very day of Pentecost when they 
had received the Holy Ghost. 

Reply Obj. 2. The use of water in Baptism is part of the 
substance of the sacrament; but the use of oil or chrism 
is part of the solemnity. For the candidate is first of all 
anointed with Holy Oil on the breast and between the 
shoulders, as one who wrestles for God, to use Ambrose's 
expression {De Sacram. i.): thus are prize-fighters wont to 
besmear themselves with oil. — Or, as Innocent (III.) says 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 119 

in a decretal on the Holy Unction : The candidate is anointed 
on the breast, in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, to 
cast off error and ignorance, and to acknowledge the true faith, 
since ' the just man liveth by faith ' ; while he is anointed 
between the shoulders, that he may be clothed with the grace 
of the Holy Ghost, lay aside indifference and sloth, and become 
active in good works ; so that the sacrament of faith may 
purify the thoughts of his heart, and strengthen his shoulders 
for the burden of labour. But after Baptism, as Rabanus 
says {De Sacram. iii.), he is forthwith anointed on the head 
by the priest with Holy Chrism, who proceeds at once to offer 
up a prayer, that the neophyte may have a share in Christ's 
kingdom, and be called a Christian after Christ.— Or, as 
Ambrose says (De Sacram. iii.), his head is anointed, because 
the senses of a wise man are in his head (EccL ii. 14) : to wit, 
that he may be ready to satisfy everyone that asketh him to 
give a reason of his faith [cf. i Pet. iii. 15; Innocent III., 
loc. cit.). 

Reply Obj. 3. This white garment is given, not as though 
it were unlawful for the neophyte to use others: but as a 
sign of the glorious resurrection, unto which men are born 
again by Baptism; and in order to designate the purity of 
life, to which he will be bound after being baptized, according 
to Rom. vi. 4: That we may walk in newness of life. 

Reply Obj. 4. Although those things that belong to the 
solemnity of a sacrament are not essential to it, yet are 
they not superfluous, since they pertain to the sacrament's 
well-being, as stated above. 

Eleventh Article. 

whether three kinds of baptism are fittingly de- 
scribed — viz., baptism of water, of blood, and of 
the spirit ? 

We proceed thus to the Eleventh Article : — - 

Objection i. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are 
not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of 
the Spirit, i.e., of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says 



120 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. ii 

(Eph. iv. 5): One Faith, one Baptism. Now there is but 
one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms. 

Ohj. 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have 
made clear above (Q. LXV., A. i). Now none but Baptism of 
Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two 
other Baptisms. 

Ohj. 3. Further, Damascene {De Fide Orthod. iv.) dis- 
tinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we 
should admit more than three Baptisms. 

On the contrary, On Heb. vi. 2, Of the doctrine of Baptisms, 
the gloss says: He uses the plural, because there is Baptism 
of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood. 

I answer that, As stated above (Q. LXIL, A. 5), Baptism 
of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a 
man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy 
Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on 
the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does 
it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism 
of water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's 
Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering 
for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc. vii. 14): These are 
they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed 
their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 
In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by 
the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism 
of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood : forasmuch as 
his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love 
God and to repent of his sins : wherefore this is also called 
Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isa. iv. 4): 
// the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, 
and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst 
thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. 
Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called 
Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. 
Wherefore Augustine says {De unico Baptismo Parvulorum, 
iv.): The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason 
from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said : ' To- 
day shall thou be with Me in Paradise,^ that suffering can take 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 121 

the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again 
and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name 
of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, hut even 
faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the 
stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism 
is not practicable. 

Reply Ohj. i. The other two Baptisms are included in the 
Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from 
Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently 
for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed. 

Reply Obj. 2. As stated above (Q. LX., A. i), a sacrament 
is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the 
Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but 
in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacra- 
ments. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative 
Baptisms. For instance, the Deluge was a figure of our 
Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the 
Church ; since then a few . . . souls were saved in the ark 
(Vulg., by water), according to i Pet. iii. 20. He also 
mentions the crossing of the Red Sea : which was a figure of 
our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage 
of sin; hence the Apostle says (i Cor. x. 2) that all . . . were 
baptized in the cloud and in the sea. — And again he mentions 
the various washings which were customary under the Old 
Law, which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing 
from sins : also the Baptism of fohn, which prepared the way 
for our Baptism. 

Twelfth Article. 

whether the baptism of blood is the most excellent 

of these three ? 

We proceed thus to the Twelfth Article : — 

Objection 1. It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the 
most excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water 
impresses a character; which the Baptism of Blood cannot 
do. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not more excellent 
than the Baptism of Water. 



122 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 66. Art. 12 

Obj. 2. Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail 
without the Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity ; for it 
is written (i Cor. xiii. 3) : // / should deliver my body to be 
burned, and have not charity, it profit eth me nothing. But the 
Baptism of the Spirit avails without the Baptism of Blood ; 
for not only the martyrs are saved. Therefore the Baptism 
of Blood is not the most excellent. 

Obj. 3. Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its 
efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above 
(A. II), the Baptism of Blood corresponds, so Christ's 
Passion derives its efficacy from the Holy Ghost, according 
to Heb. ix. 14: The Blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost 
offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our con- 
science from dead works, etc. Therefore the Baptism of the 
Spirit is more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. There- 
fore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent. 

On the contrary, Augustine {Ad Fortunatum) speaking of 
the comparison between Baptisms says: The newly baptized 
confesses his faith in the presence of the priest : the martyr 
in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with 
' water, after he has confessed ; the latter with his blood. The 
former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's 
hands ; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost. 

I answer that. As stated above (A. 11), the shedding of 
blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the 
Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce 
the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of 
Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from 
the Holy Ghost, as already stated {ibid.). These two causes 
act in each of these three Baptisms ; most excellently, how- 
ever, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in 
the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation ; 
in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of 
desire ; but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating 
the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the 
Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain 
hidden power; in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the 
heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 123 

of fervour of dilection and love, according to John xv. 13: 
Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his 
life for his friends. 

Reply Ohj. i. A character is both reahty and a sacra- 
ment. And we do not say that the Baptism of Blood is 
more excellent, considering the nature of a sacrament; 
but considering the sacramental effect. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The shedding of blood is not in the nature 
of a Baptism if it be without charity. Hence it is clear 
that the Baptism of Blood includes the Baptism of the Spirit, 
but not conversely. And from this it is proved to be more 
perfect. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The Baptism of Blood owes its pre-eminence 
not only to Christ's Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as 
stated above. 



QUESTION LXVII. 

OF THE MINISTERS BY WHOM THE SACRAMENT OF 
BAPTISM IS CONFERRED. 

{In Eight Articles.) 

We have now to consider the ministers by whom the sacra- 
ment of Baptism is conferred. And concerning this there 
are eight points of inquiry: (i) Whether it belongs to a 
deacon to baptize ? (2) Whether this belongs to a priest, 
or to a bishop only ? (3) Whether a layman can confer the 
sacrament of Baptism ? (4) Whether a woman can do this ? 
(5 ) Whether an unbaptized person can baptize ? (6) Whether 
several can at the same time baptize one and the same 
person ? (7) Whether it is essential that someone should 
raise the person baptized from the sacred font ? (8) Whether 
he who raises someone from the sacred font is bound to 
instruct him ? 

First Article. 

WHETHER IT IS PART OF A DEACON's DUTY TO 

BAPTIZE ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that it is part of a deacon's duty to 
baptize. Because the duties of preaching and of baptizing 
were enjoined by Our Lord at the same time, according to 
Matth. xxviii. 19: Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing 
them, etc. But it is part of a deacon's duty to preach the 
gospel. Therefore it seems that it is also part of a deacon's 
duty to baptize. 

Obj. 2. Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v.) 
to cleanse is part of the deacon's duty. But cleansing from 

124 



OF THE MINISTERS WHO CONFER BAPTISM 125 

sins is effected specially by Baptism, according to Eph. v. 26 : 
Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. There- 
fore it seems that it belongs to a deacon to baptize. 

Ohj. 3. Further, it is told of Blessed Laurence, who was 
a deacon, that he baptized many. Therefore it seems that 
it belongs to deacons to baptize. 

On the contrary, Pope Gelasius (I.) says (the passage is to 
be found in the Decrees, dist. 93) : We order the deacons to 
keep within their own province ; and further on : Without 
bishop or priest they must not dare to baptize, except in cases 
of extreme urgency, when the aforesaid are a long way off. 

I answer that, Just as the properties and duties of the 
heavenly orders are gathered from their names, as Dionysius 
says {Ccel. Hier. vi.), so can we gather, from the names of 
the ecclesiastical orders, what belongs to each order. Now 
deacons are so called from being ministers ; because, to wit, 
it is not in the deacon's province to be the chief and official 
celebrant in conferring a sacrament, but to minister to 
others, his elders, in the sacramental dispensations. And 
so it does not belong to a deacon to confer the sacrament 
of Baptism officially as it were; but to assist and serve his 
elders in the bestowal of this and other sacraments. Hence 
Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.): It is a deacon's duty to 
assist and serve the priests, in all the rites of Chrisfs sacra- 
ments, viz., those of Baptism, of the Chrism, of the Paten and 
Chalice. 

Reply Obj. i. It is the deacon's duty to read the Gospel 
in church, and to preach it as one catechizing; hence 
Dionysius says [Eccl. Hier. v.) that a deacon's office involves 
power over the unclean among whom he includes the cate- 
chumens. But to teach, i.e., to expound the Gospel, is the 
proper office of a bishop, whose action is to perfect, as Diony- 
sius teaches (Eccl. Hier. v.); and to perfect is the same as to 
teach. Consequently, it does not follow that the office of 
baptizing belongs to deacons. 

Reply Obj. 2. As Dionysius says {Eccl. Hier. ii.). Baptism 
has a power not only of cleansing but also of enlightening. 
Consequently, it is outside the province of the deacon whose 



126 THE *' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 67. Art. 2 

duty it is to cleanse only: viz., either by driving away the 
unclean, or by preparing them for the reception of a sacra- 
ment. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Because Baptism is a necessary sacrament, 
deacons are allowed to baptize in cases of urgency when 
their elders are not at hand; as appears from the authority 
of Gelasius quoted above. And it was thus that Blessed 
Laurence, being but a deacon, baptized. 

Second Article. 

whether to baptize is part of the priestly office, or 
proper to that of bishops ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article: — 

Objection z. It seems that to baptize is not part of the 
priestly oihce, but proper to that of bishops. Because, 
as stated above (A. i, ohj. i), the duties of teaching and 
baptizing are enjoined in the same precept (Matth. xxviii. 19). 
But to teach, which is to perfect, belongs to the office of 
bishop, as Dionysius declares (Eccl. Hier. v. vi.). Therefore 
to baptize also belongs to the episcopal office. 

Obj. 2. Further, by Baptism a man is admitted to the 
body of the Christian people : and to do this seems consistent 
with no other than the princely office. Now the bishops 
hold the position of princes in the Church, as the gloss 
observes on Luke x. i : indeed, they even take the place of 
the apostles, of whom it is written (Ps. xliv. 17) : Thou shalt 
make them princes over all the earth. Therefore it seems that 
to baptize belongs exclusively to the office of bishops. 

Obj. 3. Further, Isidore says {Epist. ad Ludifred.) that 
it belongs to the bishop to consecrate churches, to anoint altars, 
to consecrate (conficere) the chrism ; he it is that confers the 
ecclesiastical orders, and blesses the consecrated virgins. But 
the sacrament of Baptism is greater than all these. There- 
fore much more reason is there why to baptize should belong 
exclusively to the episcopal office. 

On the contrary, Isidore says {De Officiis. ii.): It is certain 
that Baptism was entrusted to priests alone. 



OF THE MINISTERS WHO CONFER BAPTISM 127 

/ answer that, Priests are consecrated for the purpose of 
celebrating the sacrament of Christ's Body, as stated above 
(Q. LXV., A. 3). Now that is the sacrament of ecclesias- 
tical miity, according to the Apostle (i Cor. x. 17): We, 
being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one 
bread and one chalice. Moreover, by Baptism a man 
becomes a participator in ecclesiastical unity, wherefore 
also he receives the right to approach Our Lord's Table. 
Consequently, just as it belongs to a priest to consecrate 
the Eucharist, which is the principal purpose of the priest- 
hood, so it is the proper office of a priest to baptize: since 
it seems to belong to one and the same, to produce the 
whole and to dispose the part in the whole. 

Reply Obj. i. Our Lord enjoined on the apostles, whose 
place is taken by the bishops, both duties, namely, of teach- 
ing and of baptizing, but in different ways. Because Christ 
committed to them the duty of teaching, that they might 
exercise it themselves as being the most important duty 
of all: wherefore the apostles themselves said (Acts vi. 2): 
It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and 
serve tables. On the other hand. He entrusted the apostles 
with the office of baptizing, to be exercised vicariously; 
wherefore the Apostle says (i Cor. i. 17) : Christ sent me not 
to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. And the reason for this 
was that the merit and wisdom of the minister have no 
bearing on the baptismal effect, as they have in teaching, as 
may be seen from what we have stated above (Q. LXIV., 
A. I a^ 2; A A. 5, 9). A proof of this is found also in the 
fact that Our Lord Himself did not baptize, but His disciples, 
as John relates (iv. 2). Nor does it follow from this that 
bishops cannot baptize; since what a lower power can do, 
that can also a higher power. Wherefore also the Apostle 
says {ibid. 14, 16) that he had baptized some. 

Reply Obj. 2. In every commonwealth minor affairs are 
entrusted to lower officials, while greater affairs are re- 
stricted to higher officials; according to Exod. xviii. 22: 
When any great matter soever shall fall out, let them refer it 
to thee, and let them judge the lesser matters only. Conse- 



128 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 67. Art. 3 

quently it belongs to the lower officials of the state to 
decide matters concerning the lower orders; while to the 
highest it belongs to set in order those matters that regard 
the higher orders of the state. Now by Baptism a man 
attains only to the lowest rank among the Christian people : 
and consequently it belongs to the lesser officials of the 
Church to baptize, namely, the priests, who hold the place 
of the seventy- two disciples of Christ, as the gloss says in 
the passage quoted from Luke x. 

Reply Obj. ^. As stated above (Q. LXV., A. 3), the sacra- 
ment of Baptism holds the first place in the order of neces- 
sity; but in the order of perfection there are other greater 
sacraments which are reserved to bishops. 

Third Article, 
whether a layman can baptize ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that a layman cannot baptize. 
Because, as stated above (A. 2), to baptize belongs properly 
to the priestly order. But those things which belong to an 
order cannot be entrusted to one that is not ordained. 
Therefore it seems that a layman, who has no orders, 
cannot baptize. 

Obj. 2. Further, it is a greater thing to baptize, than to 
perform the other sacramental rites of Baptism, such as 
to catechize, to exorcize, and to bless the baptismal water. 
But these things cannot be done by laymen, but only by 
priests. Therefore it seems that much less can laymen 
baptize. 

Obj. 3. Further, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, 
so is Penance. But a layman cannot absolve in the tribunal 
of Penance. Neither, therefore, can he baptize. 

On the contrary, Pope Gelasius (I.) and Isidore say that 
it is often permissible for Christian laymen to baptize, in 
cases of urgent necessity. 

I answer that, It is due to the mercy of Him Who will 
have all men to be saved (i Tim. ii. 4) that in those things 



OF THE MINISTERS WHO CONFER BAPTISM 129 

which are necessary for salvation, man can easily find the 
remedy. Now the most necessary among all the sacra- 
ments is Baptism, which is man's regeneration unto 
spiritual life : since for children there is no substitute, while 
adults cannot otherwise than by Baptism receive a full 
remission both of guilt and of its punishment. Conse- 
quently, lest man should have to go without so necessary 
a remedy, it was ordained, both that the matter of Baptism 
should be something common that is easily obtainable by 
all, i.e., water; and that the minister of Baptism should 
be anyone, even not in orders, lest from lack of being 
baptized, man should suffer loss of his salvation. 

Reply Ohj. i. To baptize belongs to the priestly order 
by reason of a certain appropriateness and solemnity: but 
this is not essential to the sacrament. Consequently, if a 
layman were to baptize even outside a case of urgency ; he 
would sin, yet he would confer the sacrament; nor would 
the person thus baptized have to be baptized again. 

Reply Ohj. 2. These sacramental rites of Baptism belong 
to the solemnity of, and are not essential to. Baptism. 
And therefore they neither should nor can be done by a 
layman, but only by a priest, whose office it is to baptize 
solemnly. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As stated above (Q. LXV., AA. 3, 4), 
Penance is not so necessary as Baptism; since contrition 
can supply the defect of the priestly absolution which does 
not free from the whole punishment, nor again is it given 
to children. Therefore the comparison with Baptism does 
not stand, because its effect cannot be supplied by anything 
else. 

Fourth Article, 
whether a woman can baptize ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — • 

Ohjection i. It seems that a woman cannot baptize. For 
we read in the acts of the Council of Carthage (iv.): How- 
ever learned and holy a woman may he, she must not presume 
to teach men in the church, or to baptize. But in no case is a 

ni. 3 9 



130 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 67. Art. 4 

woman allowed to teach in church, according to i Cor. 
xiv. 35 : It is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. 
Therefore it seems that neither is a woman in any circum- 
stances permitted to baptize. 

Ohj. 2. Further, to baptize belongs to those having 
authority ; wherefore baptism should be conferred by priests 
having charge of souls. But women are not qualified for 
this; according to i Tim. ii. 12 : 1 sufer not a woman to teach, 
nor to use authority over man, hut to he subject to him (Vulg. — 
but to be in silence). Therefore a woman cannot baptize. 

Obj. 3. Further, in the spiritual regeneration water seems 
to hold the place of the mother's womb, as Augustine says 
on John iii. 4, Can a man enter a second time into his mother'' s 
womb, and he horn again ? While he who baptizes seems 
to hold rather the position of father. But this is unfitting 
for a woman. Therefore a woman cannot baptize. 

On the contrary, Pope Urban (II.) says {Decreta xxx.): 
In reply to the questions asked by your beatitude, we consider 
that the following answer should he given : that the baptism is 
valid when, in cases of necessity, a woman baptizes a child 
in the name of the Trinity. 

I answer that, Christ is the chief Baptizer, according to 
John i. 33 : He upon Whom thou shall see the Spirit descending 
and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth. For it 
is written in Coloss. iii. (c/. Gal. iii. 28),* that in Christ there 
is neither male nor female. Consequently, just as a layman 
can baptize, as Christ's minister, so can a woman. 

But since the head of the woman is the man, and the head 
of . . . man, is Christ (i Cor. xi. 3), a woman should not 
baptize if a man be available for the purpose ; just as neither 
should a layman in the presence of a cleric, nor a cleric in 
the presence of a priest. The last, however, can baptize in 
the presence of a bishop, because it is part of the priestly office. 

Reply Ohj. i. Just as a woman is not suffered to teach 
in public, but is allowed to instruct and admonish privately; 
so she is not permitted to baptize publicly and solemnly, 
and yet she can baptize in a case of urgency. 

* Cf, Part I., Q. XCIII., A. 6, ad 2, footnote. 



OF THE MINISTERS WHO CONFER BAPTISM 131 

Reply Ohj. 2. When Baptism is celebrated solemnly and 
with due form, it should be conferred by a priest having 
charge of souls, or by one representing him. But this 
is not required in cases of urgency, when a woman may 
baptize. 

Reply Ohj. 3. In carnal generation male and female 
co-operate according to the power of their proper nature; 
wherefore the female cannot be the active, but only the 
passive, principle of generation. But in spiritual generation 
they do not act, either of them, by their proper power, 
but only instrumentally by the power of Christ. Conse- 
quently, on the same grounds either man or woman can 
baptize in a case of urgency. 

If, however, a woman were to baptize without any urgency 
for so doing ; there would be no need of rebaptism : as we 
have said in regard to laymen (K. -^ adz). But the baptizer 
herself would sin, as also those who took part with her 
therein, either by receiving Baptism from her, or by bringing 
someone to her to be baptized. 

Fifth Article. 

whether one that is not baptized can confer the 
sacrament of baptism ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that one that is not baptized cannot 
confer the sacrament of Baptism. For none gives what he 
has not. But a non-baptized person has not the sacrament 
of Baptism. Therefore he cannot give it. 

Ohj. 2. Further, a man confers the sacrament of Baptism, 
inasmuch as he is a minister of the Church. But one that 
is not baptized, belongs nowise to the Church, i.e., neither 
really nor sacramen tally. Therefore he cannot confer the 
sacrament of Baptism. 

Ohj. 3. Further, it is more to confer a sacrament than to 
receive it. But one that is not baptized, cannot receive 
the other sacraments. Much less, therefore, can he confer 
any sacrament. 



132 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 67. Art. 5 

On the contrary, Isidore says: The Roman Pontiff does not 
consider it to he the man who baptizes, hut that the Holy Ghost 
confers the grace of Baptism, though he that baptizes be a 
pagan. But he who is baptized, is not called a pagan. 
Therefore he who is not baptized can confer the sacrament 
of Baptism. 

/ answer that, Augustine left this question without de- 
ciding it. For he says (Contra Ep. Parmen. ii.): This is 
indeed another question, whether even those can baptize who 
were never Christians ; nor should anything be rashly asserted 
hereupon, without the authority of a sacred council such as 
suffices for so great a matter. But afterwards it was decided 
by the Church that the unbaptized, whether Jews or pagans, 
can confer the sacrament of Baptism, provided they baptize 
in the form of the Church. Wherefore Pope Nicolas (I.) 
replies to the questions propounded by the Bulgars: 
You say that many in your country have been baptized by 
someone, whether Christian or pagan you know not. If these 
were baptized in the name of the Trinity, they must not be 
rehaptized. But if the form of the Church be not observed, 
the sacrament of Baptism is not conferred. And thus is 
to be explained what Gregory II.* writes to Bishop Boniface : 
Those whom you assert to have been baptized by pagans, 
namely, with a form not recognized by the Church, we 
command you to rebaptize in the name of the Trinity. And 
the reason of this is that, just as on the part of the matter, 
as far as the essentials of the sacrament are concerned, any 
water will suffice, so, on the part of the minister, any man 
is competent. Consequently, an unbaptized person can 
baptize in a case of urgency. So that two unbaptized 
persons may baptize one another, one baptizing the other 
and being afterwards baptized by him: and each would 
receive not only the sacrament but also the reality of the 
sacrament. But if this were done outside a case of urgency, 
each would sin grievously, both the baptizer and the 
baptized, and thus the baptismal effect would be frustrated, 
although the sacrament itself would not be invalidated. 

* Gregory III. 



OF THE MINISTERS WHO CONFER BAPTISM 133 

Reply Ohj. i. The man who baptizes offers but his out- 
ward ministration; whereas Christ it is Who baptizes in- 
wardly, Who can use all men to whatever purpose He wills. 
Consequently, the unbaptized can baptize: because, as 
Pope Nicolas {loc. cit.) says, the Baptism is not theirs, i.e., 
the baptizers', but His., i.e., Christ's. 

Reply Ohj. 2. He who is not baptized, though he belongs 
not to the Church either in reality or sacramentally, can 
nevertheless belong to her in intention and by similarity 
of action, namely, in so far as he intends to do what the 
Church does, and in baptizing observes the Church's form, 
and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not confine 
His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to 
the sacraments. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The other sacraments are not so necessary 
as Baptism. And therefore it is allowable that an un- 
baptized person should baptize rather than that he should 
receive other sacraments. 

Sixth Article, 
whether several can baptize at the same time ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — • 

Ohjection i. It seems that several can baptize at the same 
time. For unity is contained in multitude, but not vice 
versa. Wherefore it seems that many can do whatever 
one can, but not vice versa : thus many draw a ship which 
one could draw. But one man can baptize. Therefore 
several, too, can baptize one at the same time. 

Ohj. 2. Further, it is more difficult for one agent to act 
on many things, than for many to act at the same time on 
one. But one man can baptize several at the same time. 
Much more, therefore, can many baptize one at the same 
time. 

Ohj. 3. Further, Baptism is a sacrament of the greatest 
necessity. Now in certain cases it seems necessary for 
several to baptize one at the same time; for instance, 
suppose a child to be in danger of death, and two persons 



134 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 67. Art. 6 

present one of whom is dumb, and the other without hands 
or arms; for then the mutilated person would have to 
pronounce the words, and the dumb person would have to 
perform the act of baptizing. Therefore it seems that 
several can baptize one at the same time. 

On the contrary, Where there is one agent there is one 
action. If, therefore, several were to baptize one, it seems 
to follow that there would be several baptisms: and this is 
contrary to Eph. iv. 5 : one Faith, one Baptism. 

I answer that, The Sacrament of Baptism derives its 
power principally from its form, which the Apostle calls 
the word of life (Eph. v. 26). Consequently, if several were 
to baptize one at the same time, we must consider what 
form they would use. For were they to say: We baptize 
thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Ghost, some maintain that the sacrament of Baptism would 
not be conferred, because the form of the Church would 
not be observed, i.e., I baptize thee in the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. — But this reasoning 
is disproved by the form observed in the Greek Church. 
For they might say : The servant of God, N. , is baptized in the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, 
under which form the Greeks receive the sacrament of 
Baptism: and yet this form differs far more from the form 
that we use, than does this : We baptize thee. 

The point to be observed, however, is this, that by this 
form. We baptize thse, the intention expressed is that several 
concur in conferring one Baptism: and this seems contrary 
to the notion of a minister; for a man does not baptize save 
as a minister of Christ, and as standing in His place ; where- 
fore just as there is one Christ, so should there be one 
minister to represent Christ. Hence the Apostle says 
pointedly (Eph. iv. 5): One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. 
Consequently, an intention which is in opposition to this 
seems to annul the sacrament of Baptism. 

On the other hand, if each were to say: / baptize thee in 
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, 
each would signify his intention as though he were con- 



OF THE MINISTERS WHO CONFER BAPTISM 135 

ferring Baptism independently of the other. This might 
occur in the case where both were striving to baptize some- 
one; and then it is clear that whichever pronounced the 
words first would confer the sacrament of Baptism; while 
the other, however great his right to baptize, if he presume 
to utter the words, would be liable to be punished as a 
rebaptizer. If, however, they were to pronounce the words 
absolutely at the same time, and dipped or sprinkled the 
man together, they should be punished for baptizing in an 
improper manner, but not for rebaptizing: because each 
would intend to baptize an unbaptized person, and each, 
so far as he is concerned, would baptize. Nor would they 
confer several sacraments: but the one Christ baptizing 
inwardly would confer one sacrament by means of both 
together. 

Reply Ohj. i. This argument avails in those agents that 
act by their own power. But men do not baptize by their 
own, but by Christ's power, Who, since He is one, perfects 
His work by means of one minister. 

Reply Ohj. 2. In a case of necessity one could baptize 
several at the same time under this form: / baptize ye : for 
instance, if they were threatened by a falling house, or by 
the sword or something of the kind, so as not to allow of 
the delay involved by baptizing them singly. Nor would 
this cause a change in the Church's form, since the plural 
is nothing but the singular doubled: especially as we find 
the plural expressed in Matth. xxviii. 19: Baptizing them, 
etc. Nor is there parity between the baptizer and the 
baptized; since Christ, the baptizer in chief, is one: while 
many are made one in Christ by Baptism. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As stated above (Q. LXVL, A. i), the 
integrity of Baptism consists in the form of words and the 
use of the matter. Consequently, neither he who only 
pronounces the words, baptizes, nor he who dips. Where- 
fore if one pronounces the words and the other dips, no 
form of words can be fitting. For neither could he say: 
/ baptize thee : since he dips not, and therefore baptizes not. 
Nor could they say: We baptize thee : since neither baptizes. 



136 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 67. Art. 7 

For if of two men, one write one part of a book, and the 
other write the other, it would not be a proper form of 
speech to say : We wrote this book, but the figure of synecdoche 
in which the whole is put for the part. 



Seventh Article. 

whether in baptism it is necessary for someone to 
raise the baptized from the sacred font ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 
Objection i. It seems that in Baptism it is not necessary 
for someone to raise the baptized from the sacred font. 
For our Baptism is consecrated by Christ's Baptism and is 
conformed thereto. But Christ when baptized was not raised 
by anyone from the font, but according to Matth. iii. 16, 
Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water. There- 
fore it seems that neither when others are baptized should 
anyone raise the baptized from the sacred font. 

Obj. 2. Further, Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, as 
stated above (A. 3). But in carnal generation nothing else 
is required but the active principle, i.e. the father, and 
the passive principle, i.e. the mother. Since, then, in 
Baptism he that baptizes takes the place of the father, 
while the very water of Baptism takes the place of the 
mother, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany 
(cxxxv. ) ; it seems that there is no further need for someone 
to raise the baptized from the sacred font. 

Obj. 3. Further, nothing ridiculous should be observed 
in the sacraments of the Church. But it seems ridiculous 
that after being baptized adults, who can stand up of them- 
selves and leave the sacred font, should be held up by an- 
other. Therefore there seems no need for anyone, especially 
in the Baptism of adults, to raise the baptized from the 
sacred font. 

On the contrary, Dionysius says {Eccl. Hier. ii.) that the 
priests taking the baptized, hand him over to his sponsor and 
guide. 

I answer that. The spiritual regeneration, which takes 



OF THE MINISTERS WHO CONFER BAPTISM 137 

place in Baptism, is in a certain manner likened to carnal 
generation : wherefore it is written (i Pet. ii. 2): As new-born 
babes, endowed with reason, desire milk (Vulg., — desire reason- 
able milk) without guile. Now, in carnal generation the 
new-born child needs nourishment and guidance : wherefore, 
in spiritual generation also, someone is needed to undertake 
the office of nurse and tutor by forming and instructing 
one who is yet a novice in the Faith, concerning things 
pertaining to Christian faith and mode of life, which the 
clergy have not the leisure to do through being busy with 
watching over the people generally: because little children 
and novices need more than ordinary care. Consequently 
someone is needed to receive the baptized from the sacred 
font as though for the purpose of instructing and guiding 
them. It is to this that Dionysius refers {Eccl. Hier. xi.) 
saying : It occurred to our heavenly guides — i.e., the Apostles — • 
and they decided, that infants should be taken charge of thus : — • 
that the parents of the child should hand it over to some in- 
structor versed in holy things, who would thenceforth take 
charge of the child, and be to it a spiritual father and a guide 
in the road of salvation. 

Reply Obj. i. Christ was baptized not that He might be 
regenerated, but that He might regenerate others: where- 
fore after His Baptism He needed no tutor like other 
children. 

Reply Obj. 2. In carnal generation nothing is essential 
besides a father and a mother : yet to ease the latter in her 
travail, there is need for a midwife ; and for the child to be 
suitably brought up there is need for a nurse and a tutor: 
while their place is taken in Baptism by him who raises the 
child from the sacred font. Consequently this is not essen- 
tial to the sacrament, and in a case of necessity one alone 
can baptize with water. 

Reply Obj. 3. It is not on account of bodily weakness 
that the baptized is raised from the sacred font by the 
godparent, but on account of spiritual weakness, as stated 
above. 



138 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 67. Art. 8 



Eighth Article. 

whether he who raises anyone from the sacred font 
is bound to instruct him ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — 

Objection 1. It seems that he who raises anyone from the 
sacred font is not bound to instruct him. For none but 
those who are themselves instructed can give instruction. 
But even the uneducated and ill-instructed are allowed to 
raise people from the sacred font. Therefore he who raises 
a baptized person from the font is not bound to instruct him. 

Obj. 2. Further, a son is instructed by his father better 
than by a stranger: for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic viii.), 
a son receives from his father, being, food, and education. 
If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their god- 
children, it would be fitting for the carnal father, rather 
than another, to be the godparent of his own child. And 
yet this seems to be forbidden, as may be seen in the Decretals 
(xxx., qu. I, Cap. Perveint and Dictum est). 

Obj. 3. Further, it is better for several to instruct than 
for one only. If, therefore, godparents are bound to in- 
struct their godchildren, it would be better to have several 
godparents than only one. Yet this is forbidden in a decree 
of Pope Leo, who says : A child should not have more than one 
godparent, be this a man or a woman. 

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon for Easter 
(clxviii. ) : In the first place I admonish you, both men 
and women, who have raised children in Baptism, that ye 
stand before God as sureties for those whom you have been 
seen to raise from the sacred font. 

I answer that, Every man is bound to fulfil those duties 
which he has undertaken to perform. Now it has been 
stated above (A. 7) that godparents take upon themselves 
the duties of a tutor. Consequently they are bound to 
watch over their godchildren when there is need for them 
to do so : for instance, when and where children are brought 
up among unbelievers. But if they are brought up among 



OF THE MINISTERS WHO CONFER BAPTISM 139 

Catholic Christians, the godparents may well be excused 
from this responsibility, since it may be presumed that the 
children will be carefully instructed by their parents. If, 
however, they perceive in any way that the contrary is the 
case, they would be bound, as far as they are able, to see 
to the spiritual welfare of their godchildren. 

Reply Ohj. i. Where the danger is imminent, the god- 
parent, as Dionysius says {Eccl. Hier. vii.), should be some- 
one versed in holy things. But where the danger is not 
imminent, by reason of the children being brought up 
among Catholics, anyone is admitted to this position, be- 
cause the things pertaining to the Christian rule of life and 
faith are known openly by all. Nevertheless an unbaptized 
person cannot be a godparent, as was decreed in the Council 
of Mainz, although an unbaptized person may baptize: 
because the person baptizing is essential to the sacrament, 
whereas the godparent is not, as stated above (A. y ad 2). 

Reply Ohj. 2. Just as spiritual generation is distinct from 
carnal generation, so is spiritual education distinct from 
that of the body; according to Heb. xii. 9: Moreover we 
have had fathers of our flesh for instructors, and we reverenced 
them : shall we not much more obey the Father of Spirits, and 
live ? Therefore the spiritual father should be distinct 
from the carnal father, unless necessity demanded otherwise. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Education would be full of confusion if 
there were more than one head instructor. Wherefore there 
should be one principal sponsor in Baptism : but others can 
be allowed as assistants. 



QUESTION LXVIII. 

OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM. 

[In Twelve Articles.) 

We have now to consider those who receive Baptism; con- 
cerning which there are twelve points of inquiry : (i) Whether 
all are bound to receive Baptism ? (2) Whether a man can 
be saved without Baptism ? (3) Whether Baptism should 
be deferred ? (4) Whether sinners should be baptized ? 
(5) Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on 
sinners that have been baptized? (6) Whether Confession 
of sins is necessary ? (7) Whether an intention is required 
on the part of the one baptized ? (8) Whether faith is 
necessary ? (9) Whether infants should be baptized ? 
(10) Whether the children of Jews should be baptized 
against the will of their parents ? (11) Whether anyone 
should be baptized in the mother's womb ? (12) Whether 
madmen and imbeciles should be baptized ? 

First Article, 
whether all are bound to receive baptism ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that not all are bound to receive Bap- 
tism. For Christ did not narrow man's road to salvation. 
But before Christ's coming men could be saved without 
Baptism : therefore also after Christ's coming. 

Ohj. 2. Further, Baptism seems to have been instituted 
principally as a remedy for original sin. Now, since a man 
who is baptized is without original sin, it seems that he 
cannot transmit it to his children. Therefore it seems that 

140 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 141 

the children of those who have been baptized, should not 
themselves be baptized. 

Ohj. 3. Further, Baptism is given in order that a man 
may, through grace, be cleansed from sin. But those who 
are sanctified in the womb, obtain this without Baptism. 
Therefore they are not bound to receive Baptism. 

On the contrary, It is written (John iii. 5) : Unless a man he 
horn again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into 
the kingdom of God. Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogmat. 
xli. that we believe the way of salvation to he open to those only 
who are haptized. 

I answer that. Men are bound to that without which they 
cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one 
can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the 
Apostle says (Rom. v. 18): As hy the offence of one unto all 
men unto condemnation ; so also hy the justice of one, unto 
all men unto justification of life. But for this end is Baptism 
conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may 
be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member : where- 
fore it is written (Gal. iii. 27): As many of you as have heen 
haptized in Christ, have put on Christ. Consequently it is 
manifest that all are bound to be baptized : and that without 
Baptism there is no salvation for men. 

Reply Ohj. i. At no time, not even before the coming of 
Christ, could men be saved unless they became members 
of Christ: because, as it is written (Acts iv. 12), there is no 
other name under heaven given to men, wherehy we must he 
saved. But before Christ's coming, men were incorporated 
in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith 
circumcision was the seal, as the Apostle calls it (Rom. 
iv. II) : whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were 
incorporated in Christ by faith alone, as Gregory says 
(Moral, iv.), together with the offering of sacrifices, by 
means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their 
faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are incorporated 
in Christ by faith; according to Eph. iii. 17: That Christ 
may dwell hy faith in your hearts. But faith in a thing 
already present is manifested by a sign different from that 



142 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. Art. i 

by which it was manifested when that thing was yet in the 
future: just as we use other parts of the verb, to signify the 
present, the past, and the future. Consequently although 
the sacrament itself of Baptism was not always necessary 
for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism is the sacrament, 
was always necessary. 

Reply Obj. 2. As we have stated in the Second Part 
(I. -II., Q. LXXXL, A. 3 ad 2), those who are baptized 
are renewed in spirit by Baptism, while their body remains 
subject to the oldness of sin, according to Rom. viii. 10: 
The body, indeed, is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth 
because of justification. Wherefore Augustine (Contra Julian . 
vi.) proves that not everything that is in man is baptized. 
Now it is manifest that in carnal generation man does not 
beget in respect of his soul, but in respect of his body. 
Consequently the children of those who are baptized are 
born with original sin ; wherefore they need to be baptized. 

Reply Obj. '^. Those who are sanctified in the womb, re- 
ceive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin, 
but they do not therefore receive the character, by which 
they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if any were 
to be sanctified in the womb now, they would need to be 
baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's other members 
by receiving the character. 

Second Article, 
whether a man can be saved without baptism ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without 
Baptism. For Our Lord said (John iii. 5): Unless a man be 
born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the 
kingdom of God. But those alone are saved who enter 
God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without 
Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the 
Holy Ghost. 

Obj. 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogmat. xli. it is 
written: We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 143 

good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, 
which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism. But 
if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, 
this would be the case specially with catechumens who are 
credited with good works, for they seem to have the faith 
that worketh by charity (Gal. v. 6). Therefore it seems that 
none can be saved without Baptism. 

Obj. 3. Further, as stated above (A. i; Q.LXV., A. 4), the 
sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that 
is necessary without which something cannot be (Metaph. v.). 
Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without 
Baptism. 

On the contrary, Augustine says {Super Levit. Ixxxiv.) 
that some have received the invisible sanctification without 
visible sacraments, and to their profit ; but though it is possible 
to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacra- 
ment, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit. 
Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the 
visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salva- 
tion without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the 
invisible sanctification. 

/ answer that. The sacrament of Baptism may be wanting 
to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in 
desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, 
nor wished to be baptized : which clearly indicates contempt 
of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of 
the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is 
wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation : since neither sacra- 
ment ally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, 
through Whom alone can salvation be obtained. 

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to 
anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a 
man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is 
forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such 
a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, 
on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the 
outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, 
Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies 



144 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. Art. 2 

man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who 
died while yet a catechumen: I lost him whom I was to 
regenerate : hut he did not lose the grace he prayed for. 

Reply Ohj. i. As it is written (i Kings xvi. 7), man seeth 
those things that appear, hut the Lord heholdeth the heart. 
Now a man who desires to be horn again of water and the Holy 
Ghost by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in 
body; thus the Apostle says (Rom. ii. 29) that the circum- 
cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter ; whose 
praise is not of men hut of God. 

Reply Ohj. 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be 
free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this 
plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, 
or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that 
martyrdom contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism — 
i.e., as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. 
Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for 
Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, 
which cannot be without faith that worketh hy charity), such a 
one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, 
but would suffer punishment for his past sins, hut he himself 
shall he saved, yet so as hy fire, as is stated i Cor. iii. 15. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be 
necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved 
without, at least. Baptism of desire; which, imth God, counts 
for the deed (August., Enarr. in Ps. Ivii.). 

Third Article, 
whether baptism should be deferred ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Ohjection i. It seems that Baptism should be deferred. 
For Pope Leo says {Epist. xvi.): Two seasons, i.e., Easter 
and Whitsuntide, are fixed hy the Roman Pontiff for the cele- 
hration of Baptism. Wherefore we admonish your Beatitude 
not to add any other days to this custom. Therefore it seems 
that Baptism should be conferred not at once, but delayed 
until the aforesaid seasons. 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 145 

Ohj. 2. Further, we read in the decrees of the Council of 
Agde (Can. xxxiv.): If Jews, whose had faith often 'returns 
to the vomit,'' wish to submit to the Law of the Catholic Church, 
let them for eight months enter the porch of the church with the 
catechumens ; and if they are found to come in good faith, then 
at last they may deserve the grace of Baptism. Therefore 
men should not be baptized at once, and Baptism should be 
deferred for a certain fixed time. 

Ohj. 3. Further, as we read in Isa. xxvii. 9, this is all the 
fruit, that the sin . . . should he taken away. Now sin seems 
to be taken away, or at any rate lessened, if Baptism be 
deferred. First, because those who sin after Baptism, sin 
more grievously, according to Heb. x. 29 : How much more, 
do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath .... 
esteemed the hlood of the testament, i.e., Baptism, unclean, hy 
which he was sanctified ? Secondly, because Baptism takes 
away past, but not future, sins : wherefore the more it is 
deferred, the more sins it takes away. Therefore it seems 
that Baptism should be deferred for a long time. 

On the contrary. It is written (Ecclus. v. 8) : Delay not to 
he converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day. 
But the perfect conversion to God is of those who are re- 
generated in Christ by Baptism. Therefore Baptism should 
not be deferred from day to day. 

/ answer that, In this matter we must make a distinction 
and see whether those who are to be baptized are children 
or adults. For if they be children. Baptism should not be 
deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better 
instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the 
danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them 
besides the sacrament of Baptism. 

On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere 
desire for Baptism, as stated above (A. 2). And therefore 
Baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they 
are converted, but it should be deferred until some fixed 
time. First, as a safeguard to the Church, lest she be de- 
ceived through baptizing those who come to her under false 
pretences, according to i John iv. i : Believe not every spirit, 

III. 3 10 



146 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. Art. 3 

hut try the spirits, if they he of God. And those who ap- 
proach Baptism are put to this test, when their faith and 
morals are subjected to proof for a space of time. — Secondly, 
this is needful as being useful for those who are baptized; 
for they require a certain space of time in order to be fully 
instructed in the faith, and to be drilled in those things 
that pertain to the Christian mode of life. — Thirdly, a 
certain reverence for the sacrament demands a delay 
whereby men are admitted to Baptism at the principal 
festivities, viz., of Easter and Pentecost, the result being 
that they receive the sacrament with greater devotion. 

There are, however, two reasons for forgoing this delay. 
First, when those who are to be baptized appear to be 
perfectly instructed in the faith and ready for Baptism; 
thus, Philip baptized the Eunuch at once (Acts viii.); and 
Peter, Cornelius and those who were with him (Acts x.). 
— Secondly, by reason of sickness or some kind of danger of 
death. Wherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi.): Those who 
are threatened hy death, sickness, siege, persecution, or ship- 
wreck, should he haptized at any time. 

Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no 
time to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season 
appointed by the Church, he is saved, yet so as hy fire, as 
stated above {A. 2 ad 2). Nevertheless he sins if he defer 
being baptized beyond the time appointed by the Church, 
except this be for an unavoidable cause and with the per- 
mission of the authorities of the Church. But even this sin, 
with his other sins, can be washed away by his subsequent 
contrition, which takes the place of Baptism, as stated 
above (Q. LXVL, A. 11). 

Reply Ohj. i. This decree of Pope Leo, concerning the 
celebration of Baptism at two seasons, is to be understood 
with the exception of the danger of death (which is always to 
be feared in children) as stated above. 

Reply Ohj. 2. This decree concerning the Jews was for a 
safeguard to the Church, lest they corrupt the faith of 
simple people, if they be not fully converted. Neverthe- 
less, as the same passage reads further on, if within the 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 147 

appointed time they are threatened with danger of sickness, 
they should he baptized. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Baptism, by the grace which it bestows, 
removes not only past sins, but hinders the commission of 
future sins. Now this is the point to be considered — that men 
may not sin : it is a secondary consideration that their sins 
be less grievous, or that their sins be washed away, accord- 
ing to I John ii. i, 2: My little children, these things I write 
to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an 
advocate with the Father, fesus Christ the just ; and He is the 
propitiation for our sins. 

Fourth Article, 
whether sinners should be baptized ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection 1. It seems that sinners should be baptized. 
For it is written (Zach. xiii. 1): In that day there shall be a 
fountain open to the House of David, and to the inhabitants of 
ferusalem : for the washing of the sinner and of the unclean 
woman : and this is to be understood of the fountain of 
Baptism. Therefore it seems that the sacrament of Baptism 
should be offered even to sinners. 

Obj. 2. Further, Our Lord said (Matth. ix. 12): They that 
are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill. But 
they that are ill are sinners. Therefore since Baptism is 
the remedy of Christ the physician of our souls, it seems 
that this sacrament should be offered to sinners. 

Obj. 3. Further, no assistance should be withdrawn from 
sinners. But sinners who have been baptized derive 
spiritual assistance from the very character of Baptism, 
since it is a disposition to grace. Therefore it seems that 
the sacrament of Baptism should be offered to sinners. 

On the contrary, Augustine says {Serm. clxix.) : He Who 
created thee without thee, will not justify thee without thee. 
But since a sinner's will is ill-disposed, he does not co- 
operate with God. Therefore it is useless to employ Bap- 
tism as a means of justification. 



148 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. Art. 4 

/ answer that, A man may be said to be a sinner in two 
ways. First, on account of the stain and the debt of 
punishment incurred in the past: and on sinners in this 
sense the sacrament of Baptism should be conferred, since 
it is instituted specially for this purpose, that by it the 
un cleanness of sin may be washed away, according to Eph. 
V. 26 : Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. 

Secondly, a man may be called a sinner because he wills 
to sin and purposes to remain in sin : and on sinners in this 
sense the sacrament of Baptism should not be conferred. 
First, indeed, because by Baptism men are incorporated in 
Christ, according to Gal. iii. 2J\ As many of you as have been 
baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. Now so long as a 
man wills to sin, he cannot be united to Christ, according to 
2 Cor. vi. 14: What participation hath justice with injustice .^ 
Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Penance {Serm. 
cccli.) that no man who has the use of free-will can begin the 
new life, except he repent of his former life. — Secondly, be- 
cause there should be nothing useless in the works of Christ 
and of the Church. Now that is useless which does not 
reach the end to which it is ordained; and, on the other 
hand, no one having the will to sin can, at the same time, be 
cleansed from sin, which is the purpose of Baptism; for this 
would be to combine two contradictory things. — Thirdly, 
because there should be no falsehood in the sacramental 
signs. Now a sign is false if it does not correspond with 
the thing signified. But the very fact that a man presents 
himself to be cleansed by Baptism, signifies that he prepares 
himself for the inward cleansing: while this cannot be the 
case with one who purposes to remain in sin. Therefore it 
is manifest that on such a man the sacrament of Baptism 
is not to be conferred. 

Reply Obj. i. The words quoted are to be understood of 
those sinners whose will is set on renouncing sin. 

Reply Obj. 2. The physician of souls, i.e., Christ, works 
in two ways. First, inwardly, by Himself: and thus He 
prepares man's will so that it wills good and hates evil. 
Secondly, He works through ministers, by the outward 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 149 

application of the sacraments: and in this way His work 
consists in perfecting what was begun outwardly. There- 
fore the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred save 
on those in whom there appears some sign of their interior 
conversion: just as neither is bodily medicine given to a 
sick man, unless he show some sign of life. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Baptism is the sacrament of faith. Now 
dead faith does not suffice for salvation; nor is it the 
foundation, but living faith alone, that worketh hy charity 
(Gal. V. 6), as Augustine says {De Fide et Oper.). Neither, 
therefore, can the sacrament of Baptism give salvation to a 
man whose will is set on sinning, and hence expels the form 
of faith. Moreover, the impression of the baptismal char- 
acter cannot dispose a man for grace as long as he retains 
the will to sin; for God compels no man to he virtiwus, as 
Damascene says (De Fide Orthod. ii.). 

Fifth Article. 

whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on 
sinners that have been baptized ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that works of satisfaction should be 
enjoined on sinners that have been baptized. For God's 
justice seems to demand that a man should be punished 
for every sin of his, according to Eccles. xii. 14: All things 
that are done, God will bring into judgment. But works of 
satisfaction are enjoined on sinners in punishment of past 
sins. Therefore it seems that works of satisfaction should 
be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized. 

Ohj. 2. Further, by means of works of satisfaction sinners 
recently converted are drilled into righteousness, and are 
made to avoid the occasions of sin : for satisfaction consists 
in extirpating the causes of vice, and closing the doors to sin 
(De Eccl. Dogmat. iv.). But this is most necessary in the 
case of those who have been baptized recently. Therefore 
it seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined on 
sinners. 



150 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. Art. 5 

Ohj. 3. Further, man owes satisfaction to God not less 
than to his neighbour. But if those who were recently 
baptized have injured their neighbour, they should be told 
to make reparation. Therefore they should also be told to 
make reparation to God by works of penance. 

On the contrary, Ambrose commenting on Rom. xi. 29: 
The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance, says : 
The grace of God requires neither sighs nor groans in Baptism, 
nor indeed any work at all, hut faith alone ; and condones all, 
gratis. 

I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rom. vi. 3, 4), all we 
who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death : 
for we are buried together with Him, by Baptism unto death ; 
which is to say that by Baptism man is incorporated in the 
very death of Christ. Now it is manifest from what has 
been said above (Q. XLVIIL, AA. 2, 4; Q. XLIX., A. 3) 
that Christ's death satisfied sufficiently for sins, not for ours 
only, hut also for those of the whole world, according to i John 
ii. 2. Consequently no kind of satisfaction should be en- 
joined on one who is being baptized, for any sins whatever: 
and this would be to dishonour the Passion and death of 
Christ, as being insufficient for the plenary satisfaction for 
the sins of those who were to be baptized. 

Reply Ohj. i. As Augustine says in his book on In- 
fant Baptism {De Pecc. Merit, et Remiss, i.), the effect of 
Baptism is to make those, who are baptized, to be incorporated in 
Christ as His members. Wherefore the very pains of Christ 
were satisfactory for the sins of those who were to be bap- 
tized; just as the pain of one member can be satisfactory 
for the sin of another member. Hence it is written (Isa. 
liii. 4) : Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our 
sorrows. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Those who have been lately baptized should 
be drilled into righteousness, not by penal, but by easy 
works, so as to advance to perfection by taking exercise, as 
infants by taking milk, as a gloss says on Ps. cxxx. 2\ As 
a child that is weaned is towards his mother. For this reason 
did Our Lord excuse His disciples from fasting when they 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 151 

were recently converted, as we read in Matth. ix. 14, 15 . and 
the same is written i Pet. ii. 2 : ^5 new-horn babes desire . . . 
milk . . . that thereby you may grow unto salvation. 

Reply Obj. 3. To restore what has been ill taken from 
one's neighbour, and to make satisfaction for wrong done 
to him, is to cease from sin : for the very fact of retaining 
what belongs to another and of not being reconciled to one's 
neighbour, is a sin. Wherefore those who are baptized 
should be enjoined to make satisfaction to their neighbour, 
as also to desist from sin. But they are not to be enjoined 
to suffer any punishment for past sins. 

Sixth Article. 

whether sinners who are going to be baptized are 
bound to confess their sins ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that sinners who are going to be 
baptized are bound to confess their sins. For it is written 
(Matth. iii. 6) that many were baptized by John in the Jordan 
confessing their sins. But Christ's Baptism is more perfect 
than John's. Therefore it seems that there is yet greater 
reason why they who are about to receive Christ's Baptism 
should confess their sins. 

Obj. 2. Further, it is written (Prov. xxviii. 13): He that 
hideth his sins, shall not prosper ; but he that shall confess 
and forsake them, shall obtain mercy. Now for this is a 
man baptized, that he may obtain mercy for his sins. 
Therefore those who are going to be baptized should confess 
their sins. 

Obj. 3. Further, Penance is required before Baptism, 
according to Acts ii. 38 : Do penance and be baptized every one 
of you. But confession is a part of Penance. Therefore it 
seems that confession of sins should take place before 
Baptism. 

On the contrary, Confession of sins should be sorrowful: 
thus Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Pcenit. xiv.): All 
these circumstances should be taken into account and deplored. 



152 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. Art. 6 

Now, as Ambrose says on Rom. xi. 29, the grace of God 
requires neither sighs nor groans in Baptism. Therefore con- 
fession of sins should not be required of those who are going 
to be baptized. 

I answer that, Confession of sins is twofold. One is made 
inwardly to God: and such confession of sins is required 
before Baptism : in other words, man should call his sins to 
mind and sorrow for them; since he cannot begin the new life, 
except he repent of his former life, as Augustine says in his 
book on Penance (Serm. cccli.). The other is the outward 
confession of sins, which is made to a priest ; and such con- 
fession is not required before Baptism. First, because this 
confession, since it is directed to the person of the minister, 
belongs to the sacrament of Penance, which is not required 
before Baptism, which is the door of all the sacraments. 
— Secondly, because the reason why a man makes outward 
confession to a priest, is that the priest may absolve him 
from his sins, and bind him to works of satisfaction, which 
should not be enjoined on the baptized, as stated above 
(A. 5). Moreover those who are being baptized do not need 
to be released from their sins by the keys of the Church, 
since all are forgiven them in Baptism. — Thirdly, because 
the very act of confession made to a man is penal, by 
reason of the shame it inflicts on the one confessing : whereas 
no exterior punishment is enjoined on a man who is being 
baptized. 

Therefore no special confession of sins is required of those 
who are being baptized; but that general confession suffices 
which they make when in accordance with the Church's 
ritual they renounce Satan and all his works. And in this 
sense a gloss explains Matth. iii. 6, saying that in John's 
Baptism those who are going to he baptized learn that they 
should confess their sins and promise to amend their life. 

If, however, any persons about to be baptized, wish, out 
of devotion, to confess their sins, their confession should be 
heard; not for the purpose of enjoining them to do satis- 
faction, but in order to instruct them in the spiritual life as 
a remedy against their vicious habits. 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 153 

Reply Ohj. i. Sins were not forgiven in John's Baptism, 
which, however, was the Baptism of Penance. Conse- 
quently it was fitting that those who went to receive that 
Baptism, should confess their sins, so that they should re- 
ceive a penance in proportion to their sins. But Christ's 
Baptism is without outward penance, as Ambrose says 
{loc. cit.); and therefore there is no comparison. 

Reply Ohj. 2. It is enough that the baptized make inward 
confession to God, and also an outward general confession, 
for them to prosper and obtain mercy : and they need no 
special outward confession, as stated above. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Confession is a part of sacramental Penance, 
which is not required before Baptism, as stated above : but 
the inward virtue of Penance is required. 

Seventh Article. 

whether the intention of receiving the sacrament 
of baptism is required on the part of the one 
baptized ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the intention of receiving the 
sacrament of Baptism is not required on the part of the one 
baptized. For the one baptized is, as it were, patient in 
the sacrament. But an intention is required not on the 
part of the patient but on the part of the agent. Therefore 
it seems that the intention of receiving Baptism is not re- 
quired on the part of the one baptized. 

Ohj. 2. Further, if what is necessary for Baptism be 
omitted, the Baptism must be repeated; for instance, if the 
invocation of the Trinity be omitted, as stated above 
(Q. LXVI., A. 9 ad 3). But it does not seem that a man 
should be rebaptized through not having had the intention 
of receiving Baptism: else, since his intention cannot be 
proved, anyone might ask to be baptized again on account 
of his lack of intention. Therefore it seems that no inten- 
tion is required on the part of the one baptized, in order that 
he receive the sacrament. 



154 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. art. 7 

Ohj. 3. Further, Baptism is given as a remedy for original 
sin. But original sin is contracted without the intention 
of the person born. Therefore, seemingly, Baptism re- 
quires no intention on the part of the person baptized. 

On the contrary, According to the Church's ritual, those 
who are to be baptized ask of the Church that they may 
receive Baptism: and thus they express their intention of 
receiving the sacrament. 

/ answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of 
sin, and begins a certain newness of life, according to 
Rom. vi. 4: We are buried together with Christ by Baptism 
unto death ; that, as Christ is risen from the dead . . . so we 
also may walk in newness of life. Consequently, just as, 
according to Augustine (Serm. cccli.), he who has the use of 
free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, will to repent 
of his former life ; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead 
a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving 
of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, 
it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of re- 
ceiving the sacrament. 

Reply Obj. i. When a man is justified by Baptism, his 
passiveness is not violent but voluntary: wherefore it is 
necessary for him to intend to receive that which is given him. 

Reply Obj. 2. If an adult lack the intention of receiving 
the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be 
doubt about this, the form to be used should be : If thou art 
not baptized, I baptize thee. 

Reply Obj. 3 . Baptism is a remedy not only against original, 
but also against actual sins, which are caused by our will 
and intention. 

Eighth Article. 

whether faith is required on the part of the one 

baptized ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that faith is required on the part of 
the one baptized. For the sacrament of Baptism was in- 
stituted by Christ. But Christ, in giving the form of Bap- 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 155 

tism, makes faith to precede Baptism (Mark xvi. 16) : He that 
believeth and is baptized, shall he saved. Therefore it seems 
that without faith there can be no sacrament of Baptism. 

Ohj. 2. Further, nothing useless is done in the sacraments 
of the Church. But according to the Church's ritual, the 
man who comes to be baptized is asked concerning his faith : 
Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty ? Therefore it 
seems that faith is required for Baptism. 

Obj. 3. Further, the intention of receiving the sacrament 
is required for Baptism. But this cannot be without right 
faith, since Baptism is the sacrament of right faith: for 
thereby men are incorporated in Christ, as Augustine says 
in his book on Infant Baptism [De Pecc. Merit, et Remiss, i.) ; 
and this cannot be without right faith, according to Eph. 
iii. 17 : That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts. There- 
fore it seems that a man who has not right faith cannot 
receive the sacrament of Baptism. 

Obj. 4. Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we 
have shown in the Second Part (II.-II., Q. X., A. 3). But 
those who remain in sin should not be baptized: therefore 
neither should those who remain in unbelief. 

On the contrary, Gregory writing to the bishop Quiricus 
says : We have learnt from the ancient tradition of the Fathers 
that when heretics, baptized in the name of the Trinity, come 
back to Holy Church, they are to be welcomed to her bosom, 
either with the anointing of chrism, or the imposition of hands, 
or the mere profession of faith. But such would not be the 
case if faith were necessary for a man to receive Baptism. 

I answer that, As appears from what has been said above 
(Q. LXIII., A. 6; Q. LXVI., A. 9) Baptism produces a two- 
fold effect in the soul, viz., the character and grace. There- 
fore in two ways may a thing be necessary for Baptism. 
First, as something without which grace, which is the ulti- 
mate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus 
right faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears 
from Rom. iii. 22, the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ. 
Secondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, 
because without it the baptismal character cannot be im- 



156 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. Art. 8 

printed. And thus right faith is not necessary in the one 
baptized any more than in the one who baptizes: provided 
the other conditions are fulfilled which are essential to the 
sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the 
righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, 
but by the power of God. 

Reply Ohj. i. Our Lord is speaking there of Baptism as 
bringing us to salvation by giving us sanctifying grace: 
which of course cannot be without right faith: wherefore 
He says pointedly: He that believeth and is baptized, shall he 
saved. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The Church's intention in baptizing men is 
that they may be cleansed from sin, according to Isa. 
xxvii, 9: This is all the fruit, that the sin . . . should he taken 
away. And therefore, as far as she is concerned, she does 
not intend to give Baptism save to those who have right 
faith, without which there is no remission of sins. And for 
this reason she asks those who come to be baptized whether 
they believe. If, on the contrary, anyone, without right 
faith, receive Baptism outside the Church, he does not re- 
ceive it unto salvation. Hence Augustine says {De Baptism, 
contr. Donat. iv.): From the Church heing compared to Para- 
dise we learn that men can receive her Baptism even outside 
her fold, hut that elsewhere none can receive or keep the salva- 
tion of the hlessed. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Even he who has not right faith on other 
points, can have right faith about the sacrament of Bap- 
tism: and so he is not hindered from having the intention 
of receiving that sacrament. Yet even if he think not 
aright concerning this sacrament, it is enough, for the re- 
ceiving of the sacrament, that he should have a general 
intention of receiving Baptism, according as Christ insti- 
tuted, and as the Church bestows it. 

Reply Ohj. 4. Just as the sacrament of Baptism is not to 
be conferred on a man who is unwilling to give up his other 
sins, so neither should it be given to one who is unwilling 
to renounce his unbelief. Yet each receives the sacrament 
if it be conferred on him, though not unto salvation. 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 157 

Ninth Article, 
whether children should be baptized ? 

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that children should not be bap- 
tized. For the intention to receive the sacrament is re- 
quired in one who is being baptized, as stated above (A. 7). 
But children cannot have such an intention, since they have 
not the use of free-will. Therefore it seems that they 
cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism. 

Ohj. 2. Further, Baptism is the sacrament of faith, as 
stated above (Q. XXXIX., A. 5; Q. LXVL, A. i ad i). But 
children have not faith, which demands an act of the will 
on the part of the believer, as Augustine says {Super Joan. 
xxvi.). Nor can it be said that their salvation is implied 
in the faith of their parents; since the latter are sometimes 
unbelievers, and their unbelief would conduce rather to the 
damnation of their children. Therefore it seems that 
children cannot be baptized. 

Ohj, 3. Further, it is written (i Pet. iii. 21) that Baptism 
saveth men ; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, hut 
the examination of a good conscience towards God. But 
children have no conscience, either good or bad, since they 
have not the use of reason: nor can they be fittingly 
examined, since they understand not. Therefore children 
should not be baptized. 

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii.): Our 
heavenly guides, i.e., the Apostles, approved of infants heing 
admitted to Baptism. 

I answer that, x\s the x\postle says (Rom. v. ly), if hy one 
man^s offence death reigned through one, namely Adam, much 
more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and 
of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. Now 
children contract original sin from the sin of x\dam; which 
is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of 
death, which passed upon all on account of the sin of the 
first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage (ver. 12). 



158 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. Art. 9 

Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through 
Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But Our Lord Himself 
said (John iii. 5): Unless a man he horn again of water and 
the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 
Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, 
as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam, so in 
a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ. 
Moreover it was fitting that children should receive Bap- 
tism, in order that being reared from childhood in things 
pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more 
easily persevere therein; according to Prov. xxii. 6: A 
young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will 
not depart from it. This reason is also given by Dionysius 
{loc. cit.). 

Reply Ohj. i. The spiritual regeneration effected by Bap- 
tism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as 
the child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment 
not independently, but through the nourishment of its 
mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it 
were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salva- 
tion not by their own act, but by the act of the Church. 
Hence Augustine says [De Pecc. Merit, et Remiss, i.): The 
Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, 
that they may imhihe the sacred mysteries : for they cannot as 
yet with their own hearts helieve unto justice, nor with their 
own mouths confess unto salvation. ... And if they are 
rightly said to helieve, hecause in a certain fashion they make 
profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should 
they not also he said to repent, since by the words of those 
same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil 
and this world ? For the same reason they can be said to 
intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they 
struggle and cry ; but by the act of those who bring them to 
be baptized. 

Reply Ohj. 2. As Augustine says, writing to Boniface 
(Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i.), in the Church of Our Saviour little 
children believe through others, just as they contracted from 
others those sins which are remitted in Baptism. Nor is it a 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 159 

hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbehevers, 
because, as Augustine says, writing to the same Boniface 
{Ep. xcviii.), little children are offered that they may receive 
grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that 
carry them {yet from these too, if they he good and faithful) as 
from the whole company of the saints and the faithful. For 
they are rightly considered to he offered hy those who are pleased 
at their heing offered, and hy whose charity they are united in 
communion with the Holy Ghost. And the unbelief of their 
own parents, even if after Baptism these strive to infect 
them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children. 
For as Augustine says (ihid.) when once the child has heen 
hegotten hy the will of others, he cannot suhsequently he held hy 
the honds of another^ s sin so long as he consent not with his 
will, according to Ezech. xviii. 4: ' As the soul of the Father, 
so also the soul of the son is mine ; the soul that sinneth, the 
same shall die.'' Yet he contracted from Adam that which 
was loosed hy the grace of this sacrament, hecause as yet he 
was not endowed with a separate existence. But the faith of 
one, indeed of the whole Church, profits the child through the 
operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the Church together, 
and communicates the goods of one member to another. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Just as a child, when he is being baptized, 
believes not by himself but by others, so is he examined not 
by himself but through others, and these in answer confess 
the Church's faith in the child's stead, who is aggregated 
to this faith by the sacrament of faith. And the child ac- 
quires a good conscience in himself, not indeed as to the 
act, but as to the habit, by sanctifying grace. 

Tenth Article. 

whether children of jews or other unbelievers 
should be baptized against the will of their 

PARENTS ? 

We proceed thus to the Tenth Article : — 
Ohjection i. It seems that children of Jews or other un- 
believers should be baptized against the will of their parents. 



i6o THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. Art. io 

For it is a matter of greater urgency to rescue a man from 
the danger of eternal death than from the danger of tem- 
poral death. But one ought to rescue a child that is 
threatened by the danger of temporal death, even if its 
parents through malice try to prevent its being rescued. 
Therefore much more reason is there for rescuing the 
children of unbelievers from the danger of eternal death, 
even against their parents' will. 

Obj. 2. Further, the children of slaves are themselves 
slaves, and in the power of their masters. But Jews and 
all other unbelievers are the slaves of kings and rulers. 
Therefore without any injustice rulers can have the children 
of Jews baptized, as well as those of other slaves who are 
unbelievers. 

Obj. 3. Further, every man belongs more to God, from 
Whom he has his soul, than to his carnal father, from whom 
he has his body. Therefore it is not unjust if the children of 
unbelievers are taken away from their carnal parents, and 
consecrated to God by Baptism. 

On the contrary, It is written in the Decretals [Dist. xlv.), 
quoting the council of Toledo : In regard to the Jews the holy 
synod commands that henceforward none of them be forced to 
believe : for such are not to be saved against their will, but 
willingly, that their righteousness may be without flaw. 

I answer that. The children of unbelievers either have the 
use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they 
already begin to control their own actions, in things that 
are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own 
accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive 
Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently 
such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized. 

If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, accord- 
ing to the natural law they are under the care of their 
parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For 
which reason we say that even the children of the ancients 
were saved throttgh the faith of their parents. Wherefore it 
would be contrary to natural justice if such children were 
baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM i6i 

one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. 
Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous 
to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be 
liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural 
affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom 
of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against 
their parents' will. 

Reply Ohj. i. It is not right to rescue a man from death 
of the body against the order of civil law: for instance, if a 
man be condemned to death by the judge who has tried him, 
none should use force in order to rescue him from death. 
Consequently, neither should anyone infringe the order of the 
natural law, in virtue of which a child is under the care of its 
father, in order to rescue it from the danger of eternal death. 

Reply Ohj, 2. Jews are slaves of rulers by civil slavery, 
which does not exclude the order of the natural and Divine law. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Man is ordained unto God through his 
reason, by which he can know God. Wherefore a child, 
before it has the use of reason, is ordained to God, by a 
natural order, through the reason of its parents, under whose 
care it naturally lies, and it is according to their ordering 
that things pertaining to God are to be done in respect of 
the child. 

Eleventh Article. 

whether a child can be baptized while yet in its 

mother's womb ? 

We proceed thus to the Eleventh Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that a child can be baptized while 
yet in its mother's womb. For the gift of Christ is more 
efficacious unto salvation than Adam's sin unto condemna- 
tion, as the Apostle says (Rom. v. 15). But a child while 
yet in its mother's womb is under sentence of condemnation 
on account of Adam's sin. For much more reason, there- 
fore, can it be saved through the gift of Christ, which is 
bestowed by means of Baptism. Therefore a child can be 
baptized while yet in its mother's womb. 

Ohj. 2. Further, a child, while yet in its mother's womb, 

III. 3 II 



i62 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. Art. ii 

seems to be part of its mother. Now, when the mother is 
baptized, whatever is in her and part of her, is baptized. 
Therefore it seems that when the mother is baptized, the 
child in her womb is baptized. 

Ohj. 3. Further, eternal death is a greater evil than death 
of the body. But of two evils the less should be chosen. 
If, therefore, the child in the mother's womb cannot be 
baptized, it would be better for the mother to be opened, 
and the child to be taken out by force and baptized, than 
that the child should be eternally danmed through dying 
without Baptism. 

Ohj. 4. Further, it happens at times that some part of 
the child comes forth first, as we read in Gen. xxxviii. 27: 
In the very delivery of the infants, one put forth a hand, whereon 
the midwife tied a scarlet thread, saying : This shall come forth 
the first. But he drawing hack his hand, the other came forth. 
Now sometimes in such cases there is danger of death. 
Therefore it seems that that part should be baptized, while 
the child is yet in its mother's womb. 

On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.) : No one 
can he horn a second time unless he be born first. But Baptism 
is a spiritual regeneration. Therefore no one should be 
baptized before he is born from the womb. 

I answer that. It is essential to Baptism that some part of 
the body of the person baptized be in some way washed wdth 
water, since Baptism is a kind of washing, as stated above 
(Q. LXVL, A. i). But an infant's body, before being born 
from the womb, can nowise be washed with water; unless 
perchance it be said that the baptismal water, with which 
the mother's body is washed, reaches the child while yet in 
its mother's womb. But this is impossible: both because 
the child's soul, to the sanctification of which Baptism is 
ordained, is distinct from the soul of the mother; and be- 
cause the body of the animated infant is already formed, 
and consequently distinct from the body of the mother. 
Therefore the Baptism which the mother receives does not 
overflow on to the child which is in her womb. Hence 
Augustine says (Cont. Julian, vi.) : // ivhat is conceived 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 163 

within a mother belonged to her body, so as to be considered a 
part thereof, we should not baptize an infant whose mother, 
through danger of death, was baptized while she bore it in her 
womb. Since, then, it, i.e., the infant, is baptized, it certainly 
did not belong to the mother^s body while it was in the womb. 
It follows, therefore, that a child can nowise be baptized 
while in its mother's womb. 

Reply Obj. i. Children while in the mother's womb have 
not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. 
Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, 
so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto 
salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of 
God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to 
receive the grace of sanctification ; as was the case with 
those who were sanctified in the womb. 

Reply Obj. 2. An internal member of the mother is some- 
thing of hers by continuity and material union of the part 
with the whole : whereas a child while in its mother's womb 
is something of hers through being joined with, and yet 
distinct from her. Wherefore there is no comparison. 

Reply Obj. 3. We should not do evil that there may come 
good (Rom. iii. 8). Therefore it is wrong to kill a mother 
that her child may be baptized. If, however, the mother 
die while the child lives yet in her womb, she should be 
opened that the child may be baptized. 

Reply Obj. 4. Unless death be imminent, we should wait 
until the child has entirely come forth from the womb 
before baptizing it. If, however, the head, wherein the 
senses are rooted, appear first, it should be baptized, in 
cases of danger: nor should it be baptized again, if perfect 
birth should ensue. And seemingly the same should be 
done in cases of danger no matter what part of the body 
appear first. But as none of the exterior parts of the body 
belong to its integrity in the same degree as the head, some 
hold that since the matter is doubtful, whenever any other 
part of the body has been baptized, the child, when perfect 
birth has taken place, should be baptized with the form : If 
thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, etc. 



i64 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 68. Art. 12 

Twelfth Article, 
whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized ? 

We proceed thus to the Twelfth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that madmen and imbeciles should 
not be baptized. For in order to receive Baptism, the 
person baptized must have the intention, as stated above 
(A. 7). But since madmen and imbeciles lack the use of 
reason, they can have but a disorderly intention. There- 
fore they should not be baptized. 

Obj. 2. Further, man excels irrational animals in that he 
has reason. But madmen and imbeciles lack the use of 
reason ; indeed in some cases we do not expect them ever to 
have it, as we do in the case of children. It seems, therefore, 
that just as irrational animals are not baptized, so neither 
should madmen and imbeciles in those cases be baptized. 

Obj. 3. Further, the use of reason is suspended in madmen 
and imbeciles more than it is in one who sleeps. But it is 
not customary to baptize people while they sleep. There- 
fore it should not be given to madmen and imbeciles. 

On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess, iv.) of his friend 
that he was baptized when his recovery was despaired of : and 
yet Baptism was efficacious with him. Therefore Baptism 
should sometimes be given to those who lack the use of 
reason. 

/ answer that, In the matter of madmen and imbeciles a 
distinction is to be made. For some are so from birth, and 
have no lucid intervals, and show no signs of the use of 
reason. And with regard to these it seems that we should 
come to the same decision as with regard to children who 
are baptized in the Faith of the Church, as stated above 
(A. 9 ad 2). 

But there are others who have fallen from a state of 
sanity into a state of insanity. And with regard to these 
we must be guided by their wishes as expressed by them 
when sane: so that, if then they manifested a desire to re- 
ceive Baptism, it should be given to them when in a state of 



OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM 165 

madness or imbecility, even though then they refuse. If, 
on the other hand, while sane they showed no desire to 
receive Baptism, they must not be baptized. 

Again, there are some who, though mad or imbecile from 
birth, have, nevertheless, lucid intervals, in which they can 
make right use of reason. Wherefore, if then they express 
a desire for Baptism, they can be baptized though they be 
actually in a state of madness. And in this case the sacra- 
ment should be bestowed on them if there be fear of danger : 
otherwise it is better to wait until the time when they are 
sane, so that they may receive the sacrament more devoutly. 
But if during the interval of lucidity they manifest no desire 
to receive Baptism, they should not be baptized while in a 
state of insanity. 

Lastly there are others who, though not altogether sane, 
yet can use their reason so far as to think about their salva- 
tion, and understand the power of the sacrament. And 
these are to be treated the same as those who are sane, and 
who are baptized if they be willing, but not against their will. 

Reply Ohj. i. Imbeciles who never had, and have not 
now, the use of reason, are baptized, according to the 
Church's intention, just as according to the Church's ritual, 
they believe and repent ; as we have stated above of children 
(A. g ad Ohj.). But those who have had the use of reason 
at some time, or have now, are baptized according to their 
own intention, which they have now, or had when they were 
sane. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Madmen and imbeciles lack the use of 
reason accidentally, i.e., through some impediment in a 
bodily organ ; but not like irrational animals through want of 
a rational soul. Consequently the comparison does not hold. 

Reply Ohj. 3. A person should not be baptized while 
asleep, except he be threatened with the danger of death. 
In which case he should be baptized, if previously he has 
manifested a desire to receive Baptism, as we have stated 
in reference to imbeciles : thus Augustine relates of his friend 
that he was haptized while unconscious, because he was in 
danger of death (Confess, iv.). 



QUESTION LXIX. 

OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM. 

{In Ten Articles.) 

We must now consider the effects of Baptism, concerning 
which there are ten points of inquiry: (i) Whether all sins 
are taken away by Baptism ? (2) Whether man is freed 
from all punishment by Baptism ? (3) Whether Baptism 
takes away the penalties of sin that belong to this life ? 
(4) Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by 
Baptism ? (5) Of the effects of virtue which are conferred 
by Baptism. (6) Whether even children receive grace and 
virtues in Baptism ? (7) Whether Baptism opens the gates 
of the heavenly kingdom to those who are baptized ? 
(8) Whether Baptism produces an equal effect in all who are 
baptized ? (9) Whether insincerity hinders the effect of 
Baptism ? (10) Whether Baptism takes effect when the 
insincerity ceases ? 

First Article, 
whether all sins are taken away by baptism ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — • 

Objection i. It seems that not all sins are taken away by 
Baptism. For Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, which 
corresponds to carnal generation. But by carnal generation 
man contracts none but original sin. Therefore none but 
original sin is taken away by Baptism. 

Ohj. 2. Further, Penance is a sufficient cause of the re- 
mission of actual sins. But penance is required in adults 
before Baptism, according to iVcts ii. 38: Do penance and he 

166 



OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM 167 

baptized every one of you. Therefore Baptism has nothing 
to do with the remission of actual sins. 

Ohj. 3. Further, various diseases demand various remedies : 
because as Jerome says on Mark ix. 27, 28: What is a cure 
for the heel is no cure for the eye. But original sin, which is 
taken away by Baptism, is generically distinct from actual 
sin. Therefore not all sins are taken away by Baptism. 

On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. xxxvi. 25): / will 
pour upon you clean water, and you shall he cleansed from all 
your filthiness. 

I answer that, As the Apostle says (Rom. vi. 3), all we, 
who are baptized in Christ fesus, are baptized in His death. 
And further on he concludes (ver. 11) : So do you also reckon 
that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our 
Lord. Hence it is clear that by Baptism man dies unto the 
oldness of sin, and begins to live unto the newness of grace. 
But every sin belongs to the primitive oldness. Conse- 
quently every sin is taken away by Baptism. 

Reply Obj. i. As the Apostle says (Rom. v. 15, 16), the 
sin of Adam was not so far-reaching as the gift of Christ, 
which is bestowed in Baptism : for judgment was by one unto 
condemnation ; but grace is of many offences, unto justification. 
Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism 
{De Pecc. Merit, et Remiss, i.), that in carnal generation, 
original sin alone is contracted ; but when we are born again 
of the Spirit, not only original sin but also wilful sin is for- 
given. 

Reply Obj. 2. No sin can be forgiven save by the power 
of Christ's Passion: hence the Apostle says (Heb. ix. 22) 
that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Conse- 
quently no movement of the human will suffices for the 
remission of sin, unless there be faith in Christ's Passion, 
and the purpose of participating in it, either by receiving 
Baptism, or by submitting to the keys of the Church. 
Therefore when an adult approaches Baptism, he does 
indeed receive the forgiveness of all his sins through his 
purpose of being baptized, but more perfectly through the 
actual reception of Baptism. 



i68 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 69. Art. 1 

Reply Obj. 3. This argument is true of special remedies. 
But Baptism operates by the power of Christ's Passion, 
which is the universal remedy for all sins; and so by Bap- 
tism all sins are loosed. 



Second Article. 

whether man is freed by baptism from all debt of 
punishment due to sin ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that man is not freed by Baptism 
from all debt of punishment due to sin. For the Apostle says 
(Rom. xiii. i): Those things that are of God are well ordered 
(Vulg., — Those that are, are ordained of God). But guilt is 
not set in order save by punishment, as Augustine says 
[Ep. cxl.). Therefore Baptism does not take away the debt 
of punishment due to sins already committed. 

Obj. 2. Further, the effect of a sacrament has a certain 
likeness to the sacrament itself; since the sacraments of the 
New Law effect what they signify, as stated above (Q. LXIL, 
A. I ad i). But the washing of Baptism has indeed a 
certain likeness with the cleansing from the stain of sin, 
but none, seemingly, with the remission of the debt of 
punishment. Therefore the debt of punishment is not taken 
away by Baptism. 

Obj. 3. Further, when the debt of punishment has been 
remitted, a man no longer deserves to be punished, and so 
it would be unjust to punish him. If, therefore, the debt of 
punishment be remitted by Baptism, it would be unjust, 
after Baptism, to hang a thief who had committed murder 
before. Consequently the severity of human legislation 
would be relaxed on account of Baptism; which is unde-. 
sirable. Therefore Baptism does not remit the debt of 
punishment. 

On the contrary, Ambrose, commenting on Rom. xi. 29, 
The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance, says : 
The grace of God in Baptism remits all gratis. 

I answer that, As stated above (Q. XLIX., A. 3 ad 2\ 



OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM 169 

Q. LXVIIL, AA. I, 4, 5) by Baptism a man is incorporated 
in the Passion and death of Christ, according to Rom vi. 8 : 
// we he dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also 
together with Christ. Hence it is clear that the Passion of 
Christ is communicated to every baptized person, so that 
he is healed just as if he himself had suffered and died. 
Now Christ's Passion, as stated above (Q. LXVKI., A. 5), 
is a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins of all men. Conse- 
quently he who is baptized, is freed from the debt of all 
punishment due to him for his sins, just as if he himself had 
offered sufficient satisfaction for all his sins. 

Reply Ohj. i. Since the pains of Christ's Passion are 
communicated to the person baptized, inasmuch as he is 
made a member of Christ, just as if he himself had borne 
those pains, his sins are set in order by the pains of Christ's 
Passion. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Water not only cleanses but also refreshes. 
And thus by refreshing it signifies the remission of the debt 
of punishment, just as by cleansing it signifies the washing 
away of guilt. 

Reply Ohj. 3. In punishments inflicted by a human tri- 
bunal, we have to consider not only what punishment a man 
deserves in respect of God, but also to what extent he is 
indebted to men who are hurt and scandalized by another's 
sin. Consequently, although a murderer is freed by Bap- 
tism from his debt of punishment in respect of God, he 
remains, nevertheless, in debt to men; and it is right that 
they should be edified at his punishment, since they were 
scandalized at his sin. But the sovereign may remit the 
penalty to suchlike out of kindness. 

Third Article. 

whether baptism should take away the penalties of 
sin that belong to this life ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 
Ohjection t. It seems that Baptism should take away the 
penalties of sin that belong to this life. For as the Apostle 



170 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 69. Art. 3 

says (Rom. v. 15), the gift of Christ is farther-reaching than 
the sin of Adam. But through Adam's sin, as the Apostle 
says (ibid. 12), death entered into this world, and, consequently, 
all the other penalties of the present life. Much more, 
therefore, should man be freed from the penalties of the 
present life, by the gift of Christ which is received in 
Baptism. 

Ohj. 2. Further, Baptism takes away the guilt of both 
original and actual sin. Now it takes away the guilt of 
actual sin in such a way as to free man from all debt of 
punishment resulting therefrom. Therefore it also frees 
man from the penalties of the present life, which are a 
punishment of original sin. 

Ohj. 3. Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is 
removed. But the cause of these penalties is original sin, 
which is taken away by Baptism. Therefore suchlike 
penalties should not remain. 

On the contrary, On Rom. vi. 6, that the body of sin may he 
destroyed, a gloss says : The effect of Baptism is that the old 
man is crucified, and the hody of sin destroyed, not as though 
the living flesh of man were delivered hy the destruction of that 
concupiscence with which it has heen bespattered from its birth ; 
hut that it may not hurt him, when dead, though it was in him 
when he was horn. Therefore for the same reason neither 
are the other penalties taken away by Baptism. 

/ answer that. Baptism has the power to take away the 
penalties of the present life : yet it does not take them away 
during the present life, but by its power they will be taken 
away from the just in the resurrection, when this mortal 
hath put on immortality (i Cor. xv. 54). And this is reason- 
able. First, because, by Baptism, man is incorporated in 
Christ, and is made His member, as stated above (A. 3; 
Q. LXVni., A. 5). Consequently it is fitting that what 
takes place in the Head should take place also in the member 
incorporated. Now, from the very beginning of His con- 
ception Christ was full of grace and truth, yet He had a 
passible body, which through His Passion and death was 
raised up to a life of glory. Wherefore a Christian receives 



OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM 171 

grace in Baptism, as to his soul; but he retains a passible 
body, so that he may suffer for Christ therein : yet at length 
he will be raised up to a life of impassibility. Hence the 
Apostle says (Rom. viii. 11): He that raised up Jesus Christ 
from the dead, shall quicken also our (Vulg., — your) mortal 
bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in us (Vulg., — you) : 
and further on in the same chapter (ver. 17) : Heirs indeed 
of God, and joint heirs with Christ : yet so, if we suffer with 
Him, that we may be also glorified with Him. 

Secondly, this is suitable for our spiritual training : namely, 
in order that, by fighting against concupiscence and other 
defects to which he is subject, man may receive the crown 
of victory. Wherefore on Rom. vi. 6, that the body of sin 
may be destroyed, a gloss says : // a man after Baptism live 
in the flesh, he has concupiscence to fight against, and to conquer 
by God's help. In sign of which it is written (Judg. iii. i, 2) : 
These are the nations which the Lord left, that by them He 
might instruct Israel . . . that afterwards their children 
might learn to fight with their enemies, and to be trained up 
to war. 

Thirdly, this was suitable, lest men might seek to be 
baptized for the sake of impassibility in the present life, 
and not for the sake of the glory of life eternal. Wherefore 
the Apostle says (i Cor. xv. 19): If in this life only we have 
hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 

Reply Obj. i. As a gloss says on Rom. vi. 6, that we may 
serve sin no longer, — Like a man who, having captured a re- 
doubtable enemy, slays him not forthwith, but suffers him to 
live for a little time in shame and suffering ; so did Christ first 
of all fetter our punishment, but at a future time He will 
destroy it. 

Reply Obj. 2. As the gloss says on the same passage 
{cf. ad J.), the punishment of sin is twofold, the punishment of 
hell, and temporal punishment. Christ entirely abolished the 
punishment of hell, so that those who are baptized and truly 
repent, should not be subject to it. He did not, however, 
altogether abolish temporal punishment yet awhile ; for hunger, 
thirst, and death still remain. But He overthrew its kingdom 



172 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 69. Art. 3 

and power in the sense that man should no longer be in fear 
of them : and at length He will altogether exterminate it at the 
last day. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As we stated in the Second Part (I. -II., 
Q. LXXXL, A. i; Q. LXXXIL, A. i ad 2) original sin 
spread in this way, that at first the person infected the 
nature, and afterwards the nature infected the person. 
Whereas Christ in reverse order at first repairs what regards 
the person, and afterwards will simultaneously repair what 
pertains to the nature in all men. Consequently by Bap- 
tism He takes away from man forthwith the guilt of original 
sin and the punishment of being deprived of the heavenly 
vision. But the penalties of the present life, such as death,, 
hunger, thirst, and the like, pertain to the nature, from the 
principles of which they arise, inasmuch as it is deprived 
of original justice. Therefore these defects will not be 
taken away until the ultimate restoration of nature through 
the glorious resurrection. 

Fourth Article, 
whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by 

BAPTISM ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — • 

Objection i. It seems that grace and virtues are not 
bestowed on man by Baptism. Because, as stated above 
(Q. LXII., A. I ad i), the Sacraments of the New Law 
effect what they signify. But the baptismal cleansing 
signifies the cleansing of the soul from guilt, and not the 
fashioning of the soul with grace and virtues. Therefore it 
seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man by 
Baptism. 

Ohj. 2. Further, one does not need to receive what one 
has already acquired. But some approach Baptism who 
have already grace and virtues: thus we read (Acts x. i, 2): 
There was a certain man in Cesarea, named Cornelius, a 
centurion of that which is called the Italian hand, a religious 
man and fearing God ; who, nevertheless, was afterwards 



OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM 173 

baptized by Peter. Therefore grace and virtues are not 
bestowed by Baptism. 

Obj. 3. Further, virtue is a habit: which is defined as a 
quality not easily removed, by which one may act easily 
and pleasurably. But after Baptism man retains prone- 
ness to evil which removes virtue ; and experiences difficulty 
in doing good, in which the act of virtue consists. There- 
fore man does not acquire grace and virtue in Baptism. 

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Tit. iii. 5,6): He saved 
us by the laver of regeneration, — i.e., 'by Baptism,' — and 
renovation of the Holy Ghost, Whom He hath poured forth 
upon us abundantly , — i.e., ' unto the remission of sins and 
the fulness of virtues,' as a gloss expounds. Therefore the 
grace of the Holy Ghost and the fulness of virtues are given 
in Baptism. 

/ answer that. As Augustine says in the book on Infant 
Baptism [De Pecc. Merit, et Remiss, i.) the effect of Baptism 
is that the baptized are incorporated in Christ as His members. 
Now the fulness of grace and virtues flows from Christ the 
Head to all His members, according to John i. 16: Of Hi& 
fulness we all have received. Hence it is clear that man 
receives grace and virtues in Baptism. 

Reply Obj. i. As the baptismal water by its cleansing 
signifies the washing away of guilt, and by its refreshment 
the remission of punishment, so by its natural clearness it 
signifies the splendour of grace and virtues. 

Reply Obj. 2. As stated above (A. 1 ad 2; Q. LXVIIL, 
A. 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in 
so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly ; 
and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a 
fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punish- 
ment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like 
him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ 
and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit : but after- 
wards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of 
grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. xxii. 2, He hath brought me 
up on the water of refreshment, a gloss says : He has brought 
us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism, 



174 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 69. Art. 4 

Reply Ohj. 3. Difficulty in doing good and proneness to 
evil are in the baptized, not through their lacking the habits 
of the virtues, but through concupiscence which is not 
taken away in Baptism. But just as concupiscence is 
diminished by Baptism, so as not to enslave us, so also 
are both the aforesaid defects diminished, so that man 
be not overcome by them. 

Fifth Article. 

whether certain acts of the virtues are fittingly 
set down as effects of baptism, to wit, — incor- 
poration in christ, enlightenment, and fruit- 
FULNESS ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article :— 

Objection i. It seems that certain acts of the virtues are 
unfittingly set down as effects of Baptism, to wit, — incor- 
poration in Christ, enlightenment, and fruitfulness. For 
Baptism is not given to an adult, except he believe; accord- 
ing to Mark xvi. 16: He that believeth and is baptized, shall 
be saved. But it is by faith that man is incorporated in 
Christ, according to Eph. iii. 17: That Christ may dwell by 
faith in your hearts. Therefore no one is baptized except 
he be already incorporated in Christ. Therefore incorpora- 
tion with Christ is not the effect of Baptism. 

Obj. 2. Further, enlightenment is caused by teaching, 
according to Eph. iii. S, g: To me the least of all the saints, is 
given this grace, . . . to enlighten all men, etc. But teaching 
by the catechism precedes Baptism. Therefore it is not 
the effect of Baptism. 

Obj. 3. Further, fruitfulness pertains to active generation. 
But a man is regenerated spiritually by Baptism. There- 
fore fruitfulness is not an effect of Baptism. 

On the contrary, Augustine says in the book on Infant 
Baptism {De Pecc. Merit, et Remiss, i.) that the effect of Bap- 
tism is that the baptized are incorporated in Christ. And 
Dionysius [Eccl. Hier. ii.) ascribes enlightenment to Bap- 
tism. And on Ps. xxii. 2, He hath brought me up on the water 



OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM 175 

of refreshment, a gloss says that the sinner'' s soul, sterilized 
by drought, is made fruitful by Baptism. 

I answer that. By Baptism, man is born again unto the 
spiritual life, which is proper to the faithful of Christ, as the 
Apostle says (Gal. ii. 20) : And that I live now in the flesh ; I 
live in the faith of the Son of God. Now life is only in those 
members that are united to the head, from which they 
derive sense and movement. And therefore it follows of 
necessity that by Baptism man is incorporated in Christ, as 
one of His members. — Again, just as the members derive 
sense and movement from the material head, so from their 
spiritual Head, i.e., Christ, do His members derive spiritual 
sense consisting in the knowledge of truth, and spiritual 
movement which results from the instinct of grace. Hence 
it is written (John i. 14, 16) : We have seen Him . . . full of 
grace and truth ; and of His fulness we all have received. 
And it follows from this that the baptized are enlightened 
by Christ as to the knowledge of truth, and made fruitful 
by Him with the fruitfulness of good works by the infusion 
of grace. 

Reply Obj. i. Adults who already believe in Christ are 
incorporated in Him mentally. But afterwards, when they 
are baptized, they are incorporated in Him, corporally, as 
it were, i.e., by the visible sacrament; without the desire 
of which they could not have been incorporated in Him 
even mentally. 

Reply Obj. 2. The teacher enlightens outwardly and 
ministerially by catechizing: but God enlightens the bap- 
tized inwardly, by preparing their hearts for the reception 
of the doctrines of truth, according to John vi. 45 : It 
is written in the prophets : . . . They shall all be taught of 
God. 

Reply Obj. 3. The fruitfulness which is ascribed as an 
effect of Baptism is that by which man brings forth good 
works; not that by which he begets others in Christ, as the 
Apostle says (i Cor. iv. 15): In Christ Jesus by the Gospel I 
have begotten you. 



176 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 69. Art. 6 



Sixth Article, 
whether children receive grace and virtues in 

BAPTISM ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that children do not receive grace 
and virtues in Baptism. For grace and virtues are not 
possessed without faith and charity. But faith, as Augustine 
says {Ep. xcviii.), depends on the will of the believer : and in 
Hke manner charity depends on the will of the lover. Now 
children have not the use of the will, and consequently they 
have neither faith nor charity. Therefore children do not 
receive grace and virtues in Baptism. 

Obj. 2. Further, on John xiv. 12, Greater than these shall 
he do, Augustine says that in order for the ungodly to be 
made righteous Christ worketh in him, but not without him. 
But a child, through not having the use of free-will, does 
not co-operate with Christ unto its justification: indeed at 
times it does its best to resist. Therefore it is not justified 
by grace and virtues. 

Obj. 3. Further, it is written (Rom. iv. 5): To him that 
worketh not, yet believing in Him that justifleth the ungodly, 
his faith is reputed to justice according to the purpose of the 
grace of God. But a child believeth not in Him that justifleth 
the ungodly. Therefore a child receives neither sanctifying 
grace nor virtues. 

Obj. 4. Further, what is done with a carnal intention does 
not seem to have a spiritual effect. But sometimes children 
are taken to Baptism with a carnal intention, to wit, that 
their bodies may be healed. Therefore they do not receive 
the spiritual effect consisting in grace and virtue. 

On the contrary, Augustine says (Enchirid. lii.) : When little 
children are baptized, they die to that sin which they contracted 
in birth : so that to them also may be applied the words : ' We 
are buried together with Him by Baptism unto death ' .• (and he 
continues thus) that as Christ is risen from the dead by the 
glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.^ 



OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM 177 

Now newness of life is through grace and virtues. There- 
fore children receive grace and virtues in Baptism. 

/ answer that, Some of the early writers held that children 
do not receive grace and virtues in Baptism, but that they 
receive the imprint of the character of Christ, by the power 
of which they receive grace and virtue when they arrive 
at the perfect age. But this is evidently false, for two 
reasons. First, because children, like adults, are made 
members of Christ in Baptism; hence they must, of neces- 
sity, receive an influx of grace and virtues from the Head. 
Secondly, because, if this were true, children that die after 
Baptism, would not come to eternal life ; since according to 
Rom. vi. 23, the grace of God is life everlasting. And conse- 
quently Baptism would not have profited them unto 
salvation. 

Now the source of their error was that they did not recog- 
nize the distinction between habit and act. And so, seeing 
children to be incapable of acts of virtue, they thought that 
they had no virtues at all after Baptism. But this inability 
of children to act is not due to the absence of habits, but 
to an impediment on the part of the body : thus also when a 
man is asleep, though he may have the habits of virtue, yet 
is he hindered from virtuous acts through being asleep. 

Reply Ob], i. Faith and charity depend on man's will, 
yet so that the habits of these and other virtues require the 
power of the will which is in children ; whereas acts of virtue 
require an act of the will, which is not in children. In this 
sense Augustine says in the book on Infant 3aptism {loc. 
cit. in Ohj. i): The little child is made a believer , not as yet 
by that faith which depends on the will of the believer, but by 
the sacrament of faith itself, which causes the habit of faith. 

Reply Obj. 2. As Augustine says in his book on Charity 
{Ep. Joan, ad Parth. iii.), no man is born of water and the 
Holy Gh-ost unwillingly, which is to be understood not of 
little children but of adults. In like manner we are to 
understand as applying to adults, that man without himself 
is not justified by Christ. Moreover, if little children who are 
about to be baptized resist as much as they can, this is not 

III. 3 12 



178 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " g. 69. Art. 6 

imputed to them, since so little do they know what they do, thai 
they seem not to do it at all : as Augustine says in a book on 
the Presence of God, addressed to Dardanus {Ep. clxxxvii.). 

Reply Ohj. 3. As Augustine says (Serm. clxxvi.): Mother 
Church lends other feei to the little children that they may 
come ; another heart that they may helieve ; another tongue that 
they may confess. So that children beheve, not by their 
own act, but by the faith of the Church, which is apphed 
to them: — by the power of which faith, grace and virtues 
are bestowed on them. 

Reply Ohj. 4. The carnal intention of those who take 
children to be baptized does not hurt the latter, as neither 
does one's sin hurt another, unless he consent. Hence 
Augustine says in his letter to Boniface {Ep. xcviii.): Be 
not disturbed because some bring children to be baptized, not 
in the hope that they may be born again to eternal life by the 
spiritual grace, but because they think it to be a remedy whereby 
they may preserve or recover health. For they are not deprived 
of regeneration, through not being brought for this intention. 

Seventh Article. 

whether the effect of baptism is to open the gates 
of the heavenly kingdom ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that it is not the effect of Baptism, 
to open the gates 'of the heavenly kingdom. For what is 
already opened needs no opening. But the gates of the 
heavenly kingdom were opened by Christ's Passion: hence 
it is written (Apoc. iv. i): After these things I looked and 
behold {a great) door was 'opened in heaven. Therefore it is 
not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the heavenly 
kingdom. 

Obj. 2. Further, Baptism has had its effects ever since 
it was instituted. But some were baptized with Christ's 
Baptism, before His Passion, according to John iii. 22, 26: 
and if they had died then, the gates of the heavenly kingdom 
would not have been opened, to them, since none entered 



OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM 179 

therein before Christ, according to Mich. ii. 13 : He went up 
(Vulg., — shall go up) that shall open the way before them. 
Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of 
the heavenly kingdom. 

Obj. 3. Further, the baptized are still subject to death 
and the other penalties of the present life, as stated above 
{A. 3). But entrance to the heavenly kingdom is opened 
to none that are subject to punishment: as is clear in 
regard to those who are in purgatory. Therefore it is not 
the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the heavenly 
kingdom. 

On the contrary, On Luke iii. 21, Heaven was opened, the 
gloss of Bede says : We see here the power of Baptism ; from 
which when a man comes forth, the gates of the heavenly king- 
dom are opened unto him. 

I answer that. To open the gates of the heavenly kingdom 
is to remove the obstacle that prevents one from entering 
therein. Now this obstacle is guilt and the debt of punish- 
ment. But it has been shown above (AA. i, 2) that all 
guilt and also all debt of punishment are taken away by 
Baptism. It follows, therefore, that the effect of Baptism 
is to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom. 

Reply Obj. i. Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly 
kingdom to the baptized in so far as it incorporates them in 
the Passion of Christ, by applying its power to man. 

Reply Obj. 2. When Christ's Passion was not as yet con- 
summated actually but only in the faith of believers. Bap- 
tism proportionately caused the gates to be opened, not in 
fact but in hope. For the baptized who died then looked 
forward, with a sure hope, to enter the heavenly kingdom. 

Reply Obj. 3. The baptized are subject to death and the 
penalties of the present life, not by reason of a personal 
debt of punishment, but by reason of the state of their 
nature. And therefore this is no bar to their entrance to 
the heavenly kingdom, when death severs the soul from 
the body; since they have paid, as it were, the debt of 
nature. 



i8o THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 69. Art. 8 

Eighth Article, 
whether baptism has an equal effect in all ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article :— 

Objection i. It seems that Baptism has not an equal effect 
in all. For the effect of Baptism is to remove guilt. But 
in some it takes away more sins than in others; for in 
children it takes away only original sins, whereas in adults 
it takes away actual sins, in some many, in others few. 
Therefore Baptism has not an equal effect in all. 

Obj. 2. Further, grace and virtues are bestowed on 
man by Baptism. But some, after Baptism, seem to 
have more grace and more perfect virtue than others who 
have been baptized. Therefore Baptism has not an equal 
effect in all. 

Obj. 3. Further, nature is perfected by grace, as matter 
by form. But a form is received into matter according to 
its capacity. Therefore, since some of the baptized, even 
children, have greater capacity for natural gifts than others 
have, it seems that some receive greater grace than others. 

05/. 4. Further, in Baptism some receive not only spiritual, 
but also bodily health; thus Constantine was cleansed in 
Baptism from leprosy. But all the infirm do not receive 
bodily health in Baptism. Therefore it has not an equal 
effect in all. 

On the contrary, It is written (Eph. iv. 5): One Faith, one 
Baptism. But a uniform cause has a uniform effect. 
Therefore Baptism has an equal effect in all. 

/ answer that. The effect of Baptism is twofold, the essen- 
tial effect, and the accidental. The essential effect of 
Baptism is that for which Baptism was instituted, namely, 
the begetting of men unto spiritual life. Therefore, since 
all children are equally disposed to Baptism, because they 
are baptized not in their own faith, but in that of the 
Church, they all receive an equal effect in Baptism. Whereas 
adults, who approach Baptism in their own faith, are not 
equally disposed to Baptism; for some approach thereto 



OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM i8i 

with greater, some with less, devotion. And therefore some 
receive a greater, some a smaller share of the grace of new- 
ness; just as from the same fire, he receives more heat who 
approaches nearest to it, although the fire, as far as it is 
concerned, sends forth its heat equally to all. 

But the accidental effect of Baptism, is that to which 
Baptism is not ordained, but which the Divine power pro- 
duces miraculously in Baptism: thus on Rom. vi. 6, that 
we may serve sin no longer, a gloss says : this is not bestowed 
in Baptism, save by an ineffable miracle of the Creator, so that 
the law of sin, which is in our members, be absolutely destroyed. 
And suchlike effects are not equally received by all the 
baptized, even if they approach with equal devotion : but 
they are bestowed according to the ordering of Divine 
providence. 

Reply Obj. i. The least baptismal grace suffices to blot 
out all sins. Wherefore that in some more sins are loosed 
than in others is not due to the greater efficacy of Baptism, 
but to the condition of the recipient: for in each one it 
looses whatever it finds. 

Reply Obj. 2. That greater or lesser grace appears in the 
baptized, may occur in two ways. First, because one re- 
ceives greater grace in Baptism than another, on account of 
his greater devotion, as stated above. Secondly, because, 
though they receive equal grace, they do not make an equal 
use of it, but one applies himself more to advance therein, 
while another by his negligence baffles grace. 

Reply Obj. 3. The various degrees of capacity in men 
arise, not from a variety in the mind which is renewed by 
Baptism (since all men, being of one species, are of one 
form), but from the diversity of bodies. But it is otherwise 
with the angels, who differ in species. And therefore 
gratuitous gifts are bestowed on the angels according to 
their diverse capacity for natural gifts, but not on men. 

Reply Obj. 4. Bodily health is not the essential effect of 
Baptism, but a miraculous work of Divine providence. 



i82 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 69. Art. 9 



Ninth Article, 
whether insincerity hinders the effect of baptism ? 

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that insincerity does not hinder the 
effect of Baptism. For the Apostle says (Gal. iii. 27): As 
many of you as have been baptized in Christ Jesus, have put 
on Christ. But all that receive the Baptism of Christ, are 
baptized in Christ. Therefore they all put on Christ: and 
this is to receive the effect of Baptism. Consequently in- 
sincerity does not hinder the effect of Baptism. 

Obj. 2. Further, the Divine power which can change man's 
will to that which is better, works in Baptism. But the 
effect of the efficient cause cannot be hindered by that 
which can be. removed by that cause. Therefore insincerity 
cannot hinder the effect of Baptism. 

Obj. 3. Further, the effect of Baptism is grace, to which 
sin is in opposition. But many other sins are more grievous 
than insincerity, which are not said to hinder the effect of 
Baptism. Therefore neither does insincerity. 

On the contrary, It is written (Wisd. i. 5) : The Holy Spirit 
of discipline will flee from the deceitful. But the effect of 
Baptism is from the Holy Ghost. Therefore insincerity 
hinders the effect of Baptism. 

I answer that, As Damascene says [De Fide Orthod. ii.), 
God does not compel man to he righteous. Consequently in 
order that a man be justified by Baptism, his will must 
needs embrace both Baptism and the baptismal effect. 
Now, a man is said to be insincere by reason of his will being 
in contradiction with either Baptism or its effect. For, 
according to Augustine {De Bapt. cont. Donat. vii.), a man 
is said to be insincere, in four ways: first, because he does 
not believe, whereas Baptism is the sacrament of Faith; 
secondly, through scorning the sacrament itself; thirdly, 
through observing a rite which differs from that prescribed 
by the Church in conferring the sacrament; fourthly, 
through approaching the sacrament without devotion. 



OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM 183 

Wherefore it is manifest that insincerity hinders the effect 
of Baptism. 

Reply Ohj. i. To he baptized in Christ, may be taken in 
two ways. First, in Christ, i.e., in conformity with Christ. 
And thus whoever is baptized in Christ so as to be conformed 
to Him by Faith and Charity, puts on Christ by grace. — 
Secondly, a man is said to be baptized in Christ, in so far 
as he receives Christ's sacrament. And thus all put on 
Christ, through being configured to Him by the character, 
but not through being conformed to Him by grace. 

Reply Ohj. 2. When God changes man's will from evil to 
good, man does not approach with insincerity. But God 
does not always do this. Nor is this the purpose of the 
sacrament, that an insincere man be made sincere; but 
that he who comes in sincerity, be justified. 

Reply Ohj. 3. A man is said to be insincere who makes 
a show of willing what he wills not . Now whoever approaches 
Baptism, by that very fact makes a show of having right 
faith in Christ, of veneration for this sacrament, and of 
wishing to conform to the Church, and to renounce sin. 
Consequently, to whatever sin a man wishes to cleave, if he 
approach Baptism, he approaches insincerely, which is the 
same as to approach without devotion. But this must be 
understood of mortal sin, which is in opposition to grace: 
but not of venial sin. Consequently, here insincerity 
includes, in a way, every sin. 

Tenth Article. 

whether baptism produces its effect when the 
insincerity ceases ? 

We proceed thus to the Tenth A rticle : — 
• Objection i. It seems that Baptism does not produce its 
effect, when the insincerity ceases. For a dead work, 
which is void of charity, can never come to life. But he 
who approaches Baptism insincerely, receives the sacra- 
ment without charity. Therefore it can never come to life 
so as to bestow grace. 



i84 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 69. Art. 10 

Ohj. 2. Further, insincerity seems to be stronger than 
Baptism, because it hinders its effect. But the stronger 
is not removed by the weaker. Therefore the sin of in- 
sincerity cannot be taken away by Baptism which has been 
hindered by insincerity. And thus Baptism will not receive 
its full effect, which is the remission of all sins. 

Ohj. 3. Further, it may happen that a man approach 
Baptism insincereh^ and afterwards commit a number of 
sins. And yet these sins will not be taken away by Baptism ; 
because Baptism washes away past, not future, sins. Such 
a Baptism, therefore, will never have its effect, which is the 
remission of all sins. 

On the contrary, Augustine says {De Baft. cont. 
Donat. i.) : Then does Baptism begin to have its salutary effect, 
when truthful confession takes the place of that insincerity 
which hindered sins from being washed away, so long as the 
heart persisted in malice and sacrilege. 

I answer that. As stated above (Q. LXVI., A. 9), Baptism 
is a spiritual regeneration. Now when a thing is generated, 
it receives together with the form, the form's effect, unless 
there be an obstacle; and when this is removed, the form 
of the thing generated produces its effect : thus at the same 
time as a weighty body is generated, it has a downward 
movement, unless something prevent this ; and when the 
obstacle is removed, it begins forthwith to move down- 
wards. In like manner when a man is baptized, he receives 
the character, which is like a form ; and he receives in conse- 
quence its proper effect, which is grace whereby all his 
sins are remitted. But this effect is sometimes hindered 
by insincerity. Wherefore, when this obstacle is removed 
by Penance, Baptism forthwith produces its effect. 

Reply Ohj. i. The sacrament of Baptism is the work of 
God, not of man. Consequently, it is not dead in the man, 
who being insincere, is baptized without charity. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Insincerity is not removed by Baptism but 
by Penance: and when it is removed. Baptism takes away 
all guilt, and all debt of punishment due to sins, whether 
committed before Baptism, or even co-existent with Baptism. 



OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM 185 

Hence Augustine says {loc. cit.): Yesterday is blotted out, 
and whatever remains over and above, even the very last hour 
and moment preceding Baptism, the very moment of Baptism. 
But from that moment forward he is bound by his obligations. 
And so both Baptism and Penance concur in producing the 
effect of Baptism, but Baptism as the direct efficient cause, 
Penance as the indirect cause, i.e., as removing the obstacle. 
Reply Obj. 3. The effect of Baptism is to take away not 
future, but present and past sins. And consequently, when 
the insincerity passes away, subsequent sins are indeed 
remitted, but by Penance, not by Baptism. Wherefore 
they are not remitted, like the sins which preceded Baptism, 
as to the whole debt of punishment. 



QUESTION LXX. 

OF CIRCUMCISION. 

{In Four Articles.) 

We have now to consider things that are preparatory to 
Baptism: and (i) that which preceded Baptism, viz., Cir- 
cumcision, (2) those which accompany Baptism, viz.. 
Catechism and Exorcism. 

. Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry: 
(i) Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a 
figure of. Baptism ? (2) Its institution. (3) Its rite. 
(4) Its effect. 

First Article. 

whether circumcision was a preparation for, and 
a figure of baptism ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that circumcision was not a prepara- 
tion for, and a figure of Baptism. For every figure has some 
likeness to that which it foreshadows. But circumcision 
has no Hkeness to Baptism. Therefore it seems that it was 
not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the Apostle, speaking of the Fathers of 
old, says (i Cor. x. 2), that all were baptized in the cloud, 
and in the sea : but not that they were baptized in circum- 
cision. Therefore the protecting pillar of a cloud, and the 
crossing of the Red Sea, rather than circumcision, were a 
preparation for, and a figure of Baptism. 

Obj. 3. Further, it was stated above (Q. XXXVIII., 
AA. I, 3) that the baptism of John was a preparation for 
Christ's. Consequently, if circumcision was a preparation 

X86, 



OF CIRCUMCISION 187 

for, and a figure of Christ's Baptism, it seems that John's 
baptism was superfluous: which is unseemly. Therefore 
circumcision was not a preparation for, and a figure of 
Baptism. 

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Coloss. ii. 11, 12): 
You are circumcised with circumcision, not made by hand in 
despoiling the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of 
Christ, buried with Him in Baptism. 

I answer that, Baptism is called the Sacrament of Faith; 
in so far, to wit, as in Baptism man makes a profession of 
faith, and by Baptism is aggregated to the congregation 
of the faithful. Now our faith is the same as that of the 
Fathers of old, according to the Apostle (2 Cor. iv. 13): 
Having the same spirit of faith . . . we , . . believe. But 
circumcision was a protestation of faith; wherefore by 
circumcision also men of old were aggregated to the body 
of the faithful. Consequently, it is manifest that circum- 
cision was a preparation for Baptism and a figure thereof, 
forasmuch as all things happened to the Fathers of old in 
figure ( I Cor. X. II) ; just as their faith regarded things to come. 

Reply Ob]\ i. Circumcision was like Baptism as to the 
spiritual effect of the latter. For just as circumcision 
removed a carnal pellicule, so Baptism despoils man of 
carnal behaviour. 

Reply Obj. 2. The protecting pillar of cloud and the 
crossing of the Red Sea were indeed figures of our Baptism, 
whereby we are born again of water, signified by the Red 
Sea; and of the Holy Ghost, signified by the pillar of cloud: 
yet man did not make, by means of these, a profession of 
faith, as by circumcision: so that these two things were 
figures but not sacraments. But circumcision was a sacra- 
ment, and a preparation for Baptism; although less clearly 
figurative of Baptism, as to externals, than the aforesaid. 
And for this reason the Apostle mentions them rather than 
circumcision. 

Reply Obj. 3. John's baptism was a preparation for 
Christ's, as to the act done: but circumcision, as to the pro- 
fession of faith, which is required in Baptism, as stated above. 



i88 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 70. Art. 2 



Second Article, 
whether circumcision was instituted in a fitting 

MANNER ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection 1. It seems that circumcision was instituted in 
an unfitting manner. For as stated above (A. i) a pro- 
fession of faith was made in circumcision. But none could 
ever be dehvered from the first man's sin, except by faith 
in Christ's Passion, according to Ram. iii. 25: Whom God 
hath proposed to he a propitiation, through faith in His blood. 
Therefore circumcision should have been instituted forth- 
with after the first man's sin, and not at the time of Abra- 
ham. 

Obj. 2. Further, in circumcision man made profession of 
keeping the Old Law, just as in Baptism he makes profession 
of keeping the New Law; wherefore the Apostle says 
(Gal. V. 3): I testify . . . to every man circumcising himself, 
that he is a debtor to do the whole Law. But the observance 
of the Law was not promulgated at the time of Abraham, 
but rather at the time of Moses. Therefore it was unfitting 
for circumcision to be instituted at the time of Abraham. 

Obj. 3. Further, circumcision was a figure of, and a 
preparation for. Baptism. But Baptism is offered to all 
nations, according to Matth. xxviii. 19: Going . . . teach ye 
all nations, baptizing them. Therefore circumcision should 
have been instituted as binding, not the Jews only, but also 
all nations. 

Obj. 4. Further, carnal circumcision should correspond 
to spiritual circumcision, as the shadow to the reality. 
But spiritual circumcision which is of Christ, regards in- 
differently both sexes, since in Christ fesus there is neither 
male nor female, as is written Coloss. iii. (Gal. iii. 28).* 
Therefore the institution of circumcision which concerns 
only males, was unfitting. 

* See note on I., Q. XCIII., A. 6. 



OF CIRCUMCISION 189 

On the contrary, We read (Gen. xvii.) that circumcision 
was instituted by God, Whose works are perfect (Deut. 
xxxii. 4). 

/ answer that. As stated above (A. i) circumcision was a 
preparation for Baptism, inasmuch as it was a profession 
of faith in Christ, which we also profess in Baptism. Now 
among the Fathers of old, Abraham was the first to receive 
the promise of the future birth of Christ, when it was said 
to him : In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth he blessed 
(Gen. xxii. 18). Moreover, he was the first to cut himself 
off from the society of unbelievers, in accordance with the 
commandment of the Lord, Who said to him (Gen. xiii. i) : 
Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred. Therefore 
circumcision was fittingly instituted in the person of 
Abraham. 

Reply Ohj. i. Immediately after the sin of our first parent, 
on account of the knowledge possessed by Adam, who was 
fully instructed about Divine things, both faith and natural 
reason flourished in man to such an extent, that there was 
no need for any signs of faith and salvation to be prescribed 
to him, but each one was wont to make protestation of his 
faith, by outward signs of his profession, according as he 
thought best. But about the time of Abraham faith was 
on the wane, many being given over to idolatry. Moreover, 
by the growth of carnal concupiscence natural reason was 
clouded even in regard to sins against nature. And there- 
fore it was fitting that then, and not before, circumcision 
should be instituted, as a profession of faith and a remedy 
against carnal concupiscence. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The observance of the Law was not to be 
promulgated until the people were already gathered to- 
gether: because the law is ordained to the public good, as 
we have stated in the Second Part (I. -II., Q. XC, A. 2). 
Now it behoved the body of the faithful to be gathered 
together by a sensible sign, which is necessary in order that 
men be united together in any religion, as Augustine says 
(Cont. Faust, xix.). Consequently, it was necessary for 
circumcision to be instituted before the giving of the Law. 



190 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGlCA " Q. 70. Art. 2 

Those Fathers, however, who Kved before the Law, taught 
their famihes concerning Divine things by way of paternal 
admonition. Hence the Lord said of Abraham (Gen. 
xviii. 19) : / know that he will command his children, and his 
household after him to keep the way of the Lord. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Baptism contains in itself the perfection 
of salvation, to which God calls all men, according to i Tim. 
ii. 4 : Who will have all men to he saved. Wherefore Baptism 
is offered to all nations. On the other hand, circumcision 
did not contain the perfection of salvation, but signified 
it as to be achieved by Christ, Who was to be born of the 
Jewish nation. For this reason circumcision was given to 
that nation alone. 

Reply Ohj. 4. The institution of circumcision is as a sign 
of Abraham's faith, who believed that himself would be 
the father of Christ Who was promised to him : and for this 
reason it was suitable that it should be for males only. 
Again, original sin, against which circumcision was specially 
ordained, is contracted from the father, not from the mother, 
as was stated in the Second Part (L-IL, Q. LXXXL, A. 5). 
But Baptism contains the power of Christ, Who is the 
universal cause of salvation for all, and is The Remission of 
all sins (Post-Communion, Tuesday in Whitweek). 

Third Article, 
whether the rite of circumcision was fitting ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — ■ 

Ohjection i. It seems that the rite of circumcision was 
unfitting. For circumcision, as stated above (AA. i, 2), 
was a profession of faith. But faith is in the apprehensive 
power, whose operations appear mostly in the head. There- 
fore the sign of circumcision should have been conferred on 
the head rather than on the virile member. 

Ohj. 2. Further, in the sacraments we make use of such 
things as are in more frequent use; for instance, water, 
which is used for washing, and bread, which we use for 
nourishment. But, in cutting, we use an iron knife more 



OF CIRCUMCISION 191 

commonly than a stone knife. Therefore circumcision 
should not have been performed with a stone knife. 

Ohj. 3. Further, just as Baptism was instituted as a 
remedy against original sin, so also was circumcision, as 
Bede says {Horn, in Circum.). But now Baptism is not 
put off until the eighth day, lest children should be in 
danger of loss on account of original sin, if they should die 
before being baptized. On the other hand, sometimes 
Baptism is put off until after the eighth day. Therefore the 
eighth day should not have been fixed for circumcision, but 
this day should have been anticipated, just as sometimes it 
was deferred. 

On the contrary, The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed 
by a gloss on Rom. iv. 11: And he received the sign of cir- 
cumcision, 

I answer that, As stated above (A. 2), circumcision was 
established, as a sign of faith, by God of Whose wisdom 
there is no number (Ps. cxlvi. 5). Now to determine suitable 
signs is a work of wisdom. Consequently, it must be 
allowed that the rite of circumcision was fitting. 

Reply Ohj. i. It was fitting for circumcision to be per- 
formed on the virile member. First, because it was a sign 
of that faith whereby Abraham believed that Christ would 
be born of his seed. Secondly, because it was to be a remedy 
against original sin, which is contracted through the act of 
generation. Thirdly, because it was ordained as a remedy 
for carnal concupiscence, which thrives principally in those 
members, by reason of the abundance of venereal pleasure. 

Reply Ohj. 2. A stone knife was not essential to circum- 
cision. Wherefore we do not find that an instrument of 
this description is required by any divine precept; nor did 
the Jews, as a rule, make use of such a knife for circumcision ; 
indeed, neither do they now. Nevertheless, certain well- 
known circumcisions are related as having been performed 
with a stone knife, thus (Exod. iv. 25) we read that Sephora 
took a very sharp stone, and circumcised the foreskin of her 
son, and (Jos. v. 2) : Make thee knives of stone, and circumcise 
the second time the children of Israel. Which signified that 



192 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 70. Art. 3 

spiritual circumcision would be done by Christ, of Whom 
it is written (i Cor. x. 4) : Now the rock was Christ. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The eighth day was fixed for circumcision: 
first, because of the mystery; since, Christ, by taking away 
from the elect, not only guilt but also all penalties, will 
perfect the spiritual circumcision, in the eighth age (which 
is the age of those that rise again), as it were, on the eighth 
day. — Secondly, on account of the tenderness of the infant 
before the eighth day. Wherefore even in regard to other 
animals it is prescribed (Lev. xxii. 27) : When a hullock, or a 
sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, they shall he seven days under 
the udder of their dam : hut the eighth day, and thenceforth, 
they may he offered to the Lord. 

Moreover, the eighth day was necessary for the fulfilment 
of the precept ; so that, to wit, those who delayed beyond 
the eighth day, sinned, even though it were the sabbath, 
according to John vii. 23: (//) a man receives circumcision 
on the sahhath-day, that the Law of Moses may not he hroken. 
But it was not necessary for the validity of the sacrament: 
because if anyone delayed beyond the eighth day, they 
could be circumcised afterwards. 

Some also say that in imminent danger of death, it was 
allowable to anticipate the eighth day. — But this cannot 
be proved either from the authority of Scripture or from 
the custom of the Jews. Wherefore it is better to say with 
Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i.) that the eighth day was 
never anticipated for any motive, however urgent. Hence 
on Prov. iv. 3 : / was . . . an only son in the sight of my mother, 
a gloss says, that Bersabee's other baby boy did not count 
because through dying before the eighth day it received 
no name; and consequently neither was it circimicised. 

Fourth Article, 
whether circumcision bestowed sanctifying 

GRACE ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 
Objection i. It seems that circumcision did not bestow 
sanctifying grace. For the Apostle says (Gal. ii. 21)': // 



OF CIRCUMCISION 193 

justice he by the Law, then Christ died in vain, i.e., without 
cause. But circumcision was an obligation imposed by the 
Law, according to Gal. v. 3 : / testify . . . to every man cir- 
cumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 
Therefore, if justice be by circumcision, Christ died in vain, 
i.e., without cause. But this cannot be allowed. There- 
fore circumcision did not confer grace whereby the sinner 
is made righteous. ' 

Obj. 2. Further, before the institution of circumcision 
faith alone sufficed for justification; hence Gregory says 
{Moral iv.) : Faith alone did of old in behalf of infants that 
for which the water of Baptism avails with us. But faith 
has lost nothing of its strength through the commandment 
of circumcision. Therefore faith alone justified little ones, 
and not circumcision. 

Obj. 3. Further, we read (Jos. v. 5, 6) that the people that 
were born in the desert, during the forty years . . . were un- 
circumcised. If, therefore, original sin was taken away 
by circumcision, it seems that all who died in the desert, 
both little children and adults, were lost. And the same 
argument avails in regard to those who died before the 
eighth day, which was that of circumcision, which day could 
not be anticipated, as stated above (A. iii. ad 3). 

Obj. 4. Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to 
the heavenly kingdom. But before the Passion the entrance 
to the heavenly kingdom was closed to the circumcised.^ 
Therefore men were not justified from sin by circumcision. 

Obj. 5. Further, original sin is not remitted without actual 
sin being remitted also : because it is wicked to hope for 
half forgiveness from God, as Augustine says (De Vera et 
Falsa Pcenit. ix.). But we read nowhere of circumcision 
as remitting actual sin. Therefore neither did it remit 
original sin. 

On the contrary, Augustine says, writing to Valerius in 
answer to Julian {De Nup. et Concup. ii.): From the time 
that circumcision was instituted among God's people, as ' a 
seal of the justice of the faith, "" it availed little children unto 
sanctification by cleansing them from the original and bygone 

III- 3 13 



194 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 70. Art. 4 

sin ; just as Baptism also from the time of its institution 
began to avail unto the renewal of man. 

I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin 
was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace 
was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. 
The Master holds this opinion, IV. Sent, i, and in a gloss on 
Rom. iv. II. But this is impossible, since guilt is not re- 
mitted except by grace, according to Rom. iii. 2: Being 
justified freely by His grace, etc. 

Wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by cir- 
cumcision, as to that effect which is the remission of guilt, 
but not as to its positive effects; lest they should be com- 
pelled to say that the grace bestowed in circumcision 
sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law, and 
that, consequently, the coming of Christ was unnecessary. — 
But neither can this opinion stand. First, because by cir- 
cumcision children received the power of obtaining glory 
at the allotted time, which is the last positive effect of 
grace. Secondly, because, in the order of the formal cause, 
positive effects naturally precede those that denote priva- 
tion, although it is the reverse in the order of the material 
cause: since a form does not remove a privation save by 
informing the subject. 

Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in 
circumcision, also as a particular positive effect consisting 
in being made worthy of eternal life; but not as to all 
its effects, for it did not suffice for the repression of the 
concupiscence of the fomes, nor again for the fulfilment of 
the precepts of the Law. And this was my opinion at one 
time (IV. Sent, i.; Q. II., A. 4). — But if one consider the 
matter carefully, it is clear that this is not true. Because 
the least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and 
avoid every mortal sin, that is committed in transgressing 
the precepts of the Law; for the smallest degree of charity 
loves God more than cupidity loves thousands of gold and 
silver (Ps. cxviii. 72). 

We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in 
circumcision as to all the effects of grace, but not as in 



OF CIRCUMCISION 195 

Baptism. Because in Baptism grace is bestowed by the 
very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has as 
the instrument of Christ's Passion already consummated. 
Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was 
a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man 
who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; 
whether, being an adult, he made profession for himself, or, 
being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, 
too, the Apostle says (Rom. iv, 11), that Abraham received 
the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith: 
because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of cir- 
cumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instru- 
ment ally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas circum- 
cision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character 
that incorporates man in Christ, and bestows grace more 
copiously than does circumcision ; since greater is the effect 
of a thing already present, than of the hope thereof. 

Reply Ohj. i. This argument would prove if justice were of 
circumcision otherwise than through faith in Christ's Passion. 
Reply Ohj. 2. Just as before the institution of circum- 
cision, faith in Christ to come justified both children and 
adults, so, too, after its institution. But before, there 
was no need of a sign expressive of this faith; because as 
yet believers had not begun to be united together apart 
from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is prob- 
able, however, that parents who were believers offered up 
some prayers to God for their children, especially if these 
were in any danger; or bestowed some blessing on them, 
as a seal of faith ; just as the adults offered prayers and 
sacrifices for themselves. 

Reply Ohj. 3. There was an excuse for the people in the 
desert failing to fulfil the precept of circumcision, both 
because they knew not when the camp was removed, and 
because, as Damascene says {De Fide Orthod. iv.) they 
needed no distinctive sign while they dwelt apart from other 
nations. Nevertheless, as Augustine says {QQ. in Josue, vi.), 
those were guilty of disobedience who failed to obey through 
Cpntergipt. 



196 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 70. Art. 4 

It seems, however, that none of the uncircumcised died 
in the desert, for it is written (Ps. civ. 37): There was not 
among their tribes one that was feeble : and that those alone 
died in the desert, who had been circumcised in Egypt. 
If, however, some of the uncircumcised did die there, the 
same appHes to them as to those who died before the insti- 
tution of circumcision. And this apphes also to those 
children who, at the time of the Law, died before the 
eighth day. 

Reply Obj. 4. Original sin was taken away in circum- 
cision, in regard to the person; but on the part of th6 entire 
nature, there remained the obstacle to the entrance of the 
kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was removed by Christ's 
Passion. Consequently, before Christ's Passion not even 
Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were cir- 
cumcision to avail after Christ's . Passion, it would give 
entrance to the kingdom. 

Reply Obj. 5. When adults were circumcised, they received 
remission not only of original, but also of actual sin: yet 
not so as to be delivered from all debt of punishment, as 
in Baptism, in which grace is conferred more copiously. 



QUESTION LXXI. 

OF THE PREPARATIONS THAT ACCOMPANY BAPTISM. 

{In Four Articles.) 

We have now to consider the preparations that accompany 
Baptism : concerning which there are four points of inquiry : 
(i) Whether catechism should precede Baptism ? (2) 
Whether exorcism should precede Baptism ? (3) Whether 
what is done in catechizing and exorcizing, effects anything, 
or is a mere sign ? (4) Whether those who are to be baptized 
should be catechized or exorcized by priests ? 

First Article, 
whether catechism should precede baptism ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that catechism should not precede 
Baptism. For by Baptism men are regenerated unto the 
spiritual life. But man begins to live before being taught. 
Therefore man should not be catechized, i.e., taught, before 
being baptized. 

Obj. 2. Further, Baptism is given not only to adults, but 
also to children, who are not capable of being taught, since 
they have not the use of reason. Therefore it is absurd to 
catechize them. 

Obj. 3. Further, a man, when catechized, confesses his 
faith. Now a child cannot confess its faith by itself, nor 
can anyone else in its stead ; both because no one can bind 
another to do anything; and because one cannot know 
whether the child, having come to the right age, will give 

197 



198 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 71. Art. i 

its assent to faith. Therefore catechism should not precede 
Baptism. 

On the contrary, Rabanus says {De Instit. Cleric, i.) : Before 
Baptism man should he prepared by catechism, in order that 
the catechumen may receive the rudiments of faith. 

I answer that. As stated above (Q. LXX., A. i), Baptism 
is the Sacrament of Faith: since it is a profession of the 
Christian faith. Now in order that a man receive the faith, 
he must be instructed therein, according to Rom. x. 14: 
How shall they believe Him, of Whom they have not heard ? 
And how shall they hear without a preacher ? And therefore 
it is fitting that catechism should precede Baptism. Hence 
when Our Lord bade His disciples to baptize. He made 
teaching to precede Baptism, saying: Go ye . . . and teach 
all nations, baptizing them, etc. 

Reply Obj. i. The life of grace unto which a man is 
regenerated, presupposes the life of the rational nature, in 
which man is capable of receiving instruction. 

Reply Obj. 2. Just as Mother Church, as stated above 
(Q. LXIX., A. 6 ad 3), lends children another^ s feet that they 
may come, and another^ s heart that they may believe, so, too, 
she lends them another's ears, that they may hear, and 
another's mind, that through others they may be taught. 
And therefore, as they are to be baptized, on the same 
grounds they are to be instructed. 

Reply Obj. 3. He who answers in the child's stead: / do 
believe, does not foretell that the child will believe when it 
comes to the right age, else he would say: He will believe ; 
but in the child's stead he professes the Church's faith which 
is communicated to that child, the sacrament of which faith 
is bestowed on it, and to which faith he is bound by another. 
For there is nothing unfitting in a person being bound by 
another in things necessary for salvation. — In like manner 
the sponsor, in answering for the child, promises to use his 
endeavours that the child may believe. This, however, 
would not be sufficient in the case of adults having the use 
of reason. 



G\TECHISM AND EXORCISM 199 

Second Article, 
whether exorcism should precede baptism ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — ■ 

Objection 1. It seems that exorcism should not precede 
Baptism. For exorcism is ordained against energumens or 
those who are possessed. But not all are suchlike. There- 
fore exorcism should not precede Baptism. 

Obj. 2. Further, so long as man is a subject of sin, the 
devil has power over him, according to John viii. 34: Whoso- 
ever committeth sin is the servant of sin. But sin is taken 
away by Baptism. Therefore men should not be exorcized 
before Baptism. 

Obj. 3. Further, Holy water was introduced in order to 
ward off the power of the demons. Therefore exorcism 
was not needed as a further remedy. 

On the contrary, Pope Celestine says {Epist. ad Episcop. 
Gallice): Whether children or young people approach the 
sacrament of regeneration, they should not come to the fount 
of life before the unclean spirit has been expelled from them 
by the exorcisms and breathings of the clerics. 

I answer that. Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, 
first removes the obstacles to his work; hence it is written 
(Jerem. iv. 3) : Break up anew your fallow ground and sow 
not upon thorns. Now the devil is the enemy of man's 
salvation, which man acquires by Baptism; and he has a 
certain power over man from the very fact that the latter 
is subject to original, or even actual, sin. Consequently it 
is fitting that before Baptism the demons should be cast 
out by exorcisms, lest they impede man's salvation. Which 
expulsion is signified by the (priest) breathing (upon the 
person to be baptized) ; while the blessing, with the imposi- 
tion of hands, bars the way against the return of him who 
was cast out. Then the salt which is put in the mouth, and 
the anointing of the nose and ears with spittle, signify the 
receiving of doctrine, as to the ears; consent thereto as to 
the nose ; and confession thereof, as to the mouth. And the 



§00 TtiE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 71. Art. 2 

anointing with oil signifies man's ability to fight against 
the demons. 

Reply Ohj. i. The en ergumens are so-called from /a&owfmg 
inwardly under the outward operation of the devil. And 
though not all that approach Baptism are troubled by him 
in their bodies, yet all who are not baptized are subject to 
the power of the demons, at least on account of the guilt 
of original sin. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The power of the devil in so far as he hinders 
man from obtaining glory, is expelled from man by the 
baptismal ablution; but in so far as he hinders man from 
receiving the sacrament, his power is cast out by the 
exorcisms. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Holy water is used against the assaults of 
demons from without. But exorcisms are directed against 
those assaults of the demons which are from within; hence 
those who are exorcized are called energumens, as it were 
labouring inwardly. 

Or we may say that just as Penance is given as a 
further remedy against sin, because Baptism is not re- 
peated ; so Holy Water is given as a further remedy against 
the assaults of demons, because the baptismal exorcisms 
are not given a second time. 

Third Article. 

whether what is done in the exorcism effects 
anything, or is a mere sign ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — • 

Ohjection i. It seems that what is done in the exorcism 
does not effect anything, but is a mere sign. For if a child 
die after the exorcisms, before being baptized, it is not 
saved. But the effects of what is done in the sacraments, 
are ordained to the salvation of man; hence it is written 
(Mark xvi. 16): He that helieveth and is haptized shall he 
saved. Therefore what is done in the exorcism effects 
nothing, but is a mere sign. 

Ohj. 2. Further, nothing is required for a sacrament of 



CATECHISM AND EXORCISM 201 

the New Law, but that it should be a sign and a cause, as 
stated above (Q. LXII., A. i). If, therefore, the things 
done in the exorcism effect anything, it seems that each of 
them is a sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, just as the exorcism is ordained to 
Baptism, so if anything be effected in the exorcism, it is 
ordained to the effect of Baptism. But disposition must 
needs precede the perfect form: because form is not received 
save into matter already disposed. It would follow, there- 
fore, that none could obtain the effect of Baptism unless 
he were previously exorcized; which is clearly false. There- 
fore what is done in the exorcisms has no effect. 

Ohj. 4. Further, just as some things are done in the 
exorcism before Baptism, so are some things done after 
Baptism; for instance, the priest anoints the baptized on 
the top of the head. But what is done after Baptism seems 
to have no effect ; for, if it had, the effect of Baptism would 
be imperfect. Therefore neither have those things an effect, 
which are done in exorcism before Baptism. 

On the contrary, Kugustme says {De Symbolo I.): Little 
children are breathed upon and exorcized, in order to expel 
from them the deviPs hostile power, which deceived man. But 
the Church does nothing in vain. Therefore the effect 
of these breathings is that the power of the devils is 
expelled. 

/ answer that, Some say that the things done in the exor- 
cism have no effect, but are mere signs. — But this is clearly 
false ; since in exorcizing, the Church uses words of command 
to cast out the devil's power, for instance, when she says: 
Therefore, accursed devil, go out from him, etc. 

Therefore we must say that they have some effect, but, 
other than that of Baptism. For Baptism gives man grace 
unto the full remission of sins. But those things that are 
done in the exorcism remove the twofold impediment 
against the reception of saving grace. Of these, one is the 
outward impediment, so far as the demons strive to hinder 
man's salvation. And this impediment is removed by the 
breathings, whereby the demon's power is cast out, as 



202 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGTCA " Q. 71. Art. 3 

appears from the passage quoted from Augustine, i.e., as to 
the devil not placing obstacles against the reception of the 
sacrament. Nevertheless, the demon's power over man 
remains as to the stain of sin, and the debt of punishment, 
until sin be washed away by Baptism. And in this sense 
Cyprian says (Epist. Ixxvi.): Know that the devil's evil power 
remains until the pouring of the saving water : hut in Baptism 
he loses it all. 

The other impediment is within, forasmuch as, from 
having contracted original sin, man's sense is closed to the 
perception of the mysteries of salvation. Hence Rabanus 
says (De Instit. Cleric, i.) that hy means of the typifying 
spittle and the touch of the priest, the Divine wisdom and power 
brings salvation to the catechumen, that his nostrils being 
opened he may perceive the odour of the knowledge of God, 
that his ears be opened to hear the commandments of God, 
that his senses be opened in his inmost heart to respond. 

Reply Obj. i. What is done in the exorcism does not take 
away the sin for which man is punished after death; but 
only the impediments against his receiving the remission 
of sin through the sacrament. Wherefore exorcism avails 
a man nothing after death if he has not been baptized. 

Prsepositivs, however, says that children who die after 
being exorcized but before being baptized are subjected to 
lesser darkness. But this does not seem to be true : because 
that darkness consists in privation of the vision of God, 
which cannot be greater or lesser. 

Reply Obj. 2. It is essential to a sacrament to produce its 
principal effect, which is grace that remits sin, or supplies 
some defect in man. But those things that are done in the 
exorcism do not effect this; they merely remove these 
impediments. Consequently, they are not sacraments but 
sacramentals. 

Reply Obj. 3. The disposition that suffices for receiving 
the baptismal grace is the faith and intention, either of 
the one baptized, if it be an adult, or of the Church, if it be 
a child. But these things that are done in the exorcism, 
are directed to the removal of the impediments. And 



CATECHISM AND EXORCISM 203 

therefore one may receive the effect of Baptism without 
them. 

Yet they are not to be omitted save in a case of necessity. 
And then, if the danger pass, they should be suppHed, that 
uniformity in Baptism may be observed. Nor are they 
suppUed to no purpose after Baptism: because, just as the 
effect of Baptism may be hindered before it is received, so 
can it be hindered after it has been received. 

Reply Ohj. 4. Of those things that are done after Baptism 
in respect of the person baptized, something is done which 
is not a mere sign, but produces an effect, for instance, the 
anointing on the top of the head, the effect of which is the 
preservation of baptismal grace. And there is something 
which has no effect, but is a mere sign, for instance, the 
baptized are given a white garment to signify the newness 
of life. 

Fourth Article. 

whether it belongs to a priest to catechize and 
exorcize the person to be baptized ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that it does not belong to a priest 
to catechize and exorcize the person to be baptized. For 
it belongs to the office of ministers to operate on the un- 
clean, as Dionysius says {Eccl. Hier. v.). But catechumens 
who are instructed by catechism, and energumens who are 
cleansed by exorcism, are counted among the unclean, as 
Dionysius says in the same place. Therefore to catechize 
and to exorcize do not belong to the office of the priests, 
but rather to that of the ministers. 

Obj. 2. Further, catechumens are instructed in the Faith 
by the Holy Scripture which is read in the church by 
ministers: for just as the Old Testament is recited by the 
Readers, so the New Testament is read by the Deacons 
and Subdeacons. And thus it belongs to the ministers to 
catechize. — In like manner it belongs, seemingly, to the 
ministers to exorcize. For Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) : 
The exorcist should know the exorcisms by heart, and impose 



204 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 71. Art. 4 

his hands on the energumens and catechumens during the 
exorcism. Therefore it belongs not to the priestly office 
to catechize and exorcize. 

Ohj. 3. Further, to catechize is the same as to teach, and 
this is the same as to perfect. Now this belongs to the office 
of a bishop, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v.). Therefore 
it does not belong to the priestly office. 

On the contrary, Pope Nicolas (I.) says: The catechizing of 
those who are to he baptized can he undertaken hy the priests 
attached to each church. And Gregory says (Hom. xxix. super 
Ezech.) : When priests place their hands on helieversfor the grace 
of exorcism, what else do they hut cast out the devils ? 

I answer that. The minister compared to the priest, is as 
a secondary and instrumental agent to the principal agent: 
as is implied in the very word minister. Now the secondary 
agent does nothing without the principal agent in operating. 
And the more mighty the operation, so much the mightier 
instruments does the principal agent require. But the 
operation of the priest in conferring the sacrament itself 
is mightier than in those things that are preparatory to the 
sacrament. And so the highest ministers who are called 
deacons co-operate with the priest in bestowing the sacra- 
ments themselves: for Isidore says [loc. cit., Ohj. 2) that it 
helongs to the deacons to assist the priests in all things that 
are done in Chrisfs sacraments, in Baptism, to wit, in the 
Chrism, in the Paten and Chalice; while the inferior 
ministers assist the priest in those things which are prepara- 
tory to the sacraments: the readers, for instance, in cate- 
chizing; the exorcists in exorcizing. 

Reply Ohj. 1. The minister's operation in regard to the 
unclean is ministerial and, as it were, instrumental, but the 
priest's is principal. 

Reply Ohf. 2. To readers and exorcists belongs the duty 
of catechizing and exorcizing, not, indeed, principally, but 
as ministers of the priest in these things. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Instruction is manifold. One leads to the 
embracing of the Faith; and is ascribed by Dionysius to 
bishops {Eccl. Hier. ii.) and can be undertaken by any 



CATECHISM AND EXORCISM 205 

preacher, or even by any believer. — Another is that by which 
a man is taught the rudiments of faith, and how to comport 
himself in receiving the sacraments : this belongs secondarily 
to the ministers, primarily to the priests. — A third is in- 
struction in the mode of Christian life: and this belongs to 
the sponsors. — A fourth is the instruction in the profound 
mysteries of faith, and on the perfection of Christian life: 
this belongs to bishops e% officio, — in virtue of their office. 



QUESTION LXXII. 

OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION. 

{In Twelve Articles.) 

We have now to consider the Sacrament of Confirmation. 
Concerning this there are twelve points of inquiry: 
(i) Whether Confirmation is a sacrament ? (2) Its matter: 

(3) Whether it is essential to the sacrament that the chrism 
should have been previously consecrated by a bishop ? 

(4) Its form : (5) Whether it imprints a character ? 
(6) Whether the character of Confirmation presupposes the 
character of Baptism ? (7) Whether it bestows grace ? 
(8) Who is competent to receive this sacrament ? (9) In 
what part of the body ? (10) Whether someone is required 
to stand for the person to be confirmed ? (11) Whether this 
sacrament is given by bishops only ? (12) Of its rite. 

First Article, 
whether confirmation is a sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that Confirmation is not a sacra- 
ment. For sacraments derive their efiicacy from the 
Divine institution, as stated above (Q. LXIV., A. 2). But 
we read nowhere of Confirmation being instituted by Christ. 
Therefore it is not a sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the sacraments of the New Law were 
foreshadowed in the Old Law; thus the Apostle says (i Cor. 
X. 2-4), that all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud and in 
the sea ; and did all eat the same spiritual food, and all drank 
the same spiritual drink. But Confirmation was not fore- 

206 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 207 

shadowed in the Old Testament. Therefore it is not a 
sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's 
salvation. But man can be saved without Confirmation : 
since children that are baptized, who die before being 
confirmed, are saved. Therefore Confirmation is not a 
sacrament. 

Ohj. 4. Further, by all the sacraments of the Church, man 
is conformed to Christ, Who is the Author of the sacraments. 
But man cannot be conformed to Christ by Confirmation, 
since we read nowhere of Christ being confirmed. 

On the contrary, Pope Melchiades wrote to the bishops of 
Spain: Concerning the point on which you sought to he in- 
formed, i.e., whether the imposition of the bishops s hand were 
a greater sacrament than Baptism, know that each is a great 
sacrament. 

I answer that. The sacraments of the New Law are ordained 
unto special effects of grace: and therefore where there is 
a special effect of grace, there we find a special sacrament 
ordained for the purpose. But since sensible and material 
things bear a likeness to things spiritual and intelligible, 
from what occurs in the life of the body, we can perceive 
that which is special to the spiritual life. Now it is evident 
that in the life of the body a certain special perfection 
consists in man's attaining to the perfect age, and being 
able to perform the perfect actions of a man: hence the 
Apostle says (i Cor. xiii. 11): When I hecame a man, I put 
away the things of a child. And thence it is that besides the 
movement of generation whereby man receives life of the 
body, there is the movement of growth, whereby man is 
brought to the perfect age. So therefore does man receive 
spiritual life in Baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration : 
while in Confirmation man arrives at the perfect age, as it 
were, of the spiritual life. Hence Pope Melchiades says: 
The Holy Ghost, Who comes down on the waters of Baptism 
hearing salvation in His flight, hestows at the font, the fulness 
of innocence ; hut in Confirmation He confers an increase of 
grace. In Baptism we are horn again unto life; after Baptism 



2o8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. i 

we are strengthened. And therefore it is evident that Con- 
firmation is a special sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. i. Concerning the institution of this sacrament 
there are three opinions. Some (Alexander of Hales, — 
Summa TheoL, P. IV., Q. IX.; S. Bonaventure,— IV. 
Se7tt. vii.) have maintained that this sacrament was in- 
stituted neither by Christ, nor by the apostles; but later 
in the course of time by one of the councils. Others (Pierre 
de Tarentaise, — IV. Sent, vii.) held that it was instituted 
by the apostles. But this cannot be admitted; since the 
institution of a new sacrament belongs to the power of 
excellence, which belongs to Christ alone. 

And therefore we must say that Christ instituted this 
sacrament not by bestowing, but by promising it, according 
to John xvi. 7: If I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you, 
butif I go, I will send Him to you. And this was because 
in this sacrament the fulness of the Holy Ghost is bestowed, 
which was not to be given before Christ's Resurrection and 
Ascension; according to John vii. 39: As yet the Spirit was 
not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. 

Reply Obj. 2. Confirmation is the sacrament of the fulness 
of grace : wherefore there could be nothing corresponding 
to it in the Cid Law, since the Law brought nothing to per- 
fection (Heb. vii. 19). 

Reply Obj. 3. As stated above (Q. LXV., A. 4), all the 
sacraments are in some way necessary for salvation: but 
some, so that there is no salvation without them; some as 
conducing to the perfection of salvation ; and thus it is that 
Confirmation is necessary for salvation: although salvation 
is possible without it, provided it be not omitted out of 
contempt. 

Reply Obj. 4. Those who receive Confirmation, which is 
the sacrament of the fulness of grace, are conformed to 
Christ, inasmuch as from the very first instant of His con- 
ception He was full of grace and truth (John i. 14). This 
fulness was made known at His Baptism, when the Holy 
Ghost descended in a bodily shape . . . upon Him (Luke iii. 22). 
Hence {ibid, iv. i) it is written that Jesus being full of the 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 2og 

Holy Ghost, returned from the Jordan, Nor was it fitting to 
Christ's dignity, that He, Who is the Author of the sacra- 
ments, should receive the fulness of grace from a sacra- 
ment. 

Second Article. 

whether chrism is a fitting matter for this 

sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that chrism is not a fitting matter 
for this sacrament. For this sacrament, as stated above 
(A. I ad i), was instituted by Christ when He promised His 
disciples the Holy Ghost. But He sent them the Holy 
Ghost without their being anointed with chrism. Moreover, 
the apostles themselves bestowed this sacrament without 
chrism, by the mere imposition of hands: for it is written 
(x\cts viii. 17) that the apostles laid their hands upon those 
who were baptized, and they received the Holy Ghost. There- 
fore chrism is not the matter of this sacrament: since the 
matter is essential to the sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, Confirmation perfects, in a way, the 
sacrament of Baptism, as stated above (Q. LXV., AA. 3,4): 
and so it ought to be conformed to it as perfection to the 
thing perfected. But the matter, in Baptism, is a simple 
element, viz., water. Therefore chrism, which is made of 
oil and balm, is not a fitting matter for this sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, oil is used as the matter of this sacra- 
ment for the purpose of anointing. But any oil will do for 
anointing: for instance, oil made from nuts, and from any- 
thing else. Therefore not only olive oil should be used for 
this sacrament. 

Ohj. 4. Further, it has been stated above (Q. LXVL, 
A. 3) that water is used as the matter of Baptism, because 
it is easily procured everywhere. But olive oil is not to be 
procured everywhere; and much less is balm. Therefore 
chrism, which is made of these, is not a fitting matter for 
this sacrament. 

On the contrary, Gregory says {Registr. iv.): Let no priest 

III. 3 14 



210 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. 2 

dare to sign the baptized infants on the brow with the sacred 
chrism. Therefore chrism is the matter of this sacrament. 

/ answer that, Chrism is the fitting matter of this sacra- 
ment. For, as stated above (A. i), in this sacrament the 
fulness of the Holy Ghost is given for the spiritual strength 
which belongs to the perfect age. Now when man comes 
to perfect age he begins at once to have intercourse with 
others; whereas until then he lives an individual life, as 
it were, confined to himself. Now the grace of the Holy 
Ghost is signified by oil; hence Christ is said to be anointed 
with the oil of gladness (Ps. xliv. 8), by reason of His being 
gifted with the fulness of the Holy Ghost. Consequently 
oil is a suitable matter of this sacrament. And balm is 
mixed with the oil, by reason of its fragrant odour, which 
spreads about : hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. ii. 15) : We are 
the good odour of Christ, etc. And though many other things 
be fragrant, yet preference is given to balm, because it has 
a special odour of its own, and because it confers incor- 
ruptibility: hence it is written (Ecclus. xxiv. 21): My odour 
is as the purest balm. 

Reply Obj. i. Christ, by the power which He exercises 
in the sacraments, bestowed on the apostles the reality of 
this sacrament, i.e., the fulness of the Holy Ghost, without 
the sacrament itself, because they had received the first 
fruits of the Spirit (Rom. viii. 23). Nevertheless, something 
of keeping with the matter of this sacrament was displayed 
to the apostles in a sensible manner when they received 
the Holy Ghost. For that the Holy Ghost came down upon 
them in a sensible manner under the form of fire, refers to 
the same signification as oil: except in so far as fire has 
an active power, while oil has a passive power, as being 
the matter and incentive of fire. And this was quite fitting : 
for it was through the apostles that the grace of the 
Holy Ghost was to flow forth to others. Again, the Holy 
Ghost came down on the apostles in the shape of a tongue. 
Which refers to the same signification as balm: except in so 
far as the tongue communicates with others by speech, but 
balm, by its odour ; because, to wit, the apostles were filled with 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 211 

the Holy Ghost, as teachers of the Faith; but the rest of the 
beHevers, as doing that which gives edification to the faithful. 

In like manner, too, when the apostles imposed their 
hands, and when they preached, the fulness of the Holy 
Ghost came down under visible signs on the faithful, just 
as, at the beginning, He came down on the apostles: hence 
Peter said (Acts xi. 15): When I had begun to speak, the 
Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning. 
Consequently there was no need for sacramental sensible 
matter, where God sent sensible signs miraculously. 

However, the apostles commonly made use of chrism in 
bestowing the sacrament, when suchlike visible signs were 
lacking. For Dionysius says {Eccl. Hier. iv.): There is a 
certain perfecting operation which our guides, i.e., the apostles, 
call the sacrifice of chrism. 

Reply Obj. 2. Baptism is bestowed that spiritual life may 
be received simply; wherefore simple matter is fitting to it. 
But this sacrament is given that we may receive the fulness 
of the Holy Ghost, Whose operations are manifold, according 
to Wis. vii. 22, In her is the Holy Spirit, . . . one, manifold ; 
and I Cor. xii. 4, There are diversities of graces, but the 
same Spirit. Consequently a compound matter is appro- 
priate to this sacrament. 

Reply Obj. 3. These properties of oil, by reason of which 
it symbolizes the Holy Ghost, are to be found in olive oil 
rather than in any other oil. In fact, the olive-tree itself, 
through being an evergreen, signifies the refreshing and 
merciful operation of the Holy Ghost. 

Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very 
much in use, wherever it is to be had. And whatever other 
liquid is so caUed, derives its name from its likeness to this 
oil: nor are the latter commonly used, unless it be to supply 
the want of olive oil. Therefore it is that this oil alone is 
used for this and certain other sacraments. 

Reply Obj. 4. Baptism is the sacrament of absolute neces- 
sity; and so its matter should be at hand everywhere. But 
it is enough that the matter of this sacrament, which is not of 
such great necessity, be easily sent to all parts of the world 



212 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. 3 



Third Article. 

whether it is essential to this sacrament that the 
chrism which is its matter be previously conse- 
crated by a bishop ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that it is not essential to this sacra- 
ment, that the chrism, which is its matter, be previously 
consecrated by a bishop. For Baptism which bestows full 
remission of sins is not less efficacious than this sacrament. 
But, though the baptismal water receives a kind of blessing 
before being used for Baptism; yet this is not essential to 
the sacrament : since in a case of necessity it can be dispensed 
with. Therefore neither is it essential to this sacrament that 
the chrism should be previously consecrated by a bishop. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the same should not be consecrated 
twice. But the sacramental matter is sanctified, in the very 
conferring of the sacrament, by the form of words wherein 
the sacrament is bestowed; hence Augustine says {Tract, 
Ixxx. in Joan.): The word is added to the element, and this 
becomes a sacrament. Therefore the chrism should not be 
consecrated before this sacrament is given. 

Obj. 3. Further, every consecration employed in the 
sacraments is ordained to the bestowal of grace. But the 
sensible matter composed of oil and balm is not receptive 
of grace. Therefore it should not be consecrated. 

On the contrary, Pope Innocent (I.) says {Ep. ad Decent,) : 
Priests, when baptizing, may anoint the baptized with chrism, 
previously consecrated by a bishop : but they must not sign 
the brow with the same oil ; this belongs to the bishop alone, 
when he gives the Paraclete. Now this is done in this sacra- 
ment. Therefore it is necessary for this sacrament that 
its matter be previously consecrated by a bishop. 

/ answer that. The entire sanctification of the sacraments 
is derived from Christ, as stated above (Q. LXIV., A. 3). 
But it must be observed that Christ did use certain sacra- 
ments having a corporeal matter, viz.. Baptism, and also the 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 213 

Eucharist. And consequently, from Christ's very act in 
using them, the matter of these sacraments received a 
certain aptitude to the perfection of the sacrament. Hence 
Chrysostom (Chromatins — In Matth. iii. 15) says that the 
waters of Baptism could never wash away the sins of believers, 
had they not been sanctified by contact with Our Lord'^s body. 
And again. Our Lord Himself taking bread . . . blessed, . . . 
and in like manner the chalice (Matth. xxvi. 26, 27; Luke 
xxii. 19, 20). For this reason there is no need for the 
matter of these sacraments to be blessed previously, since 
Christ's blessing is enough. And if any blessing be used, it 
belongs to the solemnity of the sacrament, not to its essence. 

But Christ did not make use of visible anointings, so as 
not to slight the invisible unction whereby He was anointed 
above His fellows (Ps. xliv. 8). And hence both chrism, 
and the holy oil, and the oil of the sick are blessed before 
being put to sacramental use. 

This suffices for the reply to the First Objection. 

Reply Obj. 2. Each consecration of the chrism has not 
the same object. For just as an instrument derives in- 
strumental power in two ways, viz., when it receives the form 
of an instrument, and when it is moved by the principal agent ; 
so too the sacramental matter needs a twofold sanctifica- 
tion, by one of which it becomes fit matter for the sacrament, 
while by the other it is applied to the production of the effect. 

Reply Obj. 3. Corporeal matter is receptive of grace, not 
so as to be the subject of grace, but only as the instrument 
of grace, as explained above (Q. LXII., A. 3). And this 
sacramental matter is consecrated, either by Christ, or by a 
bishop, who, in the Church, impersonates Christ. 

Fourth Article. 

whether the proper form of this sacrament is : ' i 
sign thee with the sign of the cross,' etc. ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 
Objection i. It seems that the proper form of this sacra- 
ment is not : / sign thee with the sign of the cross, I confirm 



214 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. 4 

thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. For the use of 
the sacraments is derived from Christ and the apostles. 
But neither did Christ institute this form, nor do we read 
of the apostles making use of it. Therefore it is not the 
proper form of this sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, just as the sacrament is the same every- 
where, so should the form be the same : because everything 
has unity, just as it has being, from its form. But this 
form is not used by all: for some say: / confirm thee with 
the chrism of sanctification. Therefore the above is not the 
proper form of this sacrament, 

Obj. 3. Further, this sacrament should be conformed to 
Baptism, as the perfect to the thing perfected, as stated 
above (A. 2, Obj. 2). But in the form of Baptism no mention 
is made of signing the character; nor again of the cross of 
Christ, though in Baptism man dies with Christ, as the 
Apostle says (Rom. vi. 3-8) ; nor of the effect which is salva- 
tion, though Baptism is necessary for salvation. Again, 
in the baptismal form, only one action is included; and the 
person of the baptizer is expressed in the words : / baptize 
thee, whereas the contrary is to be observed in the above 
form. Therefore this is not the proper form of this sacra- 
ment. 

On the contrary, Is the authority of the Church, who always 
uses this form. 

/ answer that, The above form is appropriate to this sacra- 
ment. For just as the form of a natural thing gives it its 
species, so a sacramental form should contain whatever be- 
longs to the species of the sacrament. Now as is evident 
from what has been already said (AA. i, 2), in this sacra- 
ment the Holy Ghost is given for strength in the spiritual 
combat. Wherefore in this sacrament three things are 
necessary; and they are contained in the above form. The 
first of these is the cause conferring fulness of spiritual 
strength, which cause is the Blessed Trinity: and this is 
expressed in the words. In the name of the Father, etc. — 
The second is the spiritual strength itself bestowed on man 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 215 

unto salvation by the sacrament of visible matter; and 
this is referred to in the words, / confirm thee with the chrism 
of salvation. — ^The third is the sign which is given to the 
combatant, as in a bodily combat: thus are soldiers marked 
with the sign of their leaders. And to this refer the words, 
/ sign thee with the sign of the cross, in which sign, to wit, 
our King triumphed {cf. Col. ii. 15). 

Reply Ohj. i. As stated above (A. 2 ad i), sometimes the 
effect of this sacrament, i.e., the fulness of the Holy Ghost, 
was given through the ministry of the apostles, under cer- 
tain visible signs, wrought miraculously by God, Who can 
bestow the sacramental effect, independently of the sacra- 
ment. In these cases there was no need for either the 
matter or the form of this sacrament. On the other hand, 
sometimes they bestowed this sacrament as ministers of the 
sacraments. And then, they used both matter and form 
according to Christ's command. For the apostles, in con- 
ferring the sacraments, observed many things which are not 
handed down in those Scriptures that are in general use. 
Hence Dionysius says at the end of his treatise on the Ecclesi- 
astical Hierarchy (chap, vii.): It is not allowed to explain 
in writing the prayers which are used in the sacraments, and 
to publish their mystical meaning, or the power which, coming 
from God, gives them their efficacy ; we learn these things by 
holy tradition without any display,'^ i.e., secretly. Hence the 
apostle, speaking of the celebration of the Eucharist, writes 
(i Cor. xi. 34) : The rest I will set in order, when I come. 

Reply Obj. 2. Holiness is the cause of salvation. There- 
fore it comes to the same whether we say chrism of salva- 
tion or of sanctification. 

Reply Obj. 3. Baptism is the regeneration unto the 
spiritual life, whereby man lives in himself. And therefore 
in the baptismal form that action alone is expressed which 
refers to the man to be sanctified. But this sacrament is 
ordained not only to the sanctification of man in himself, but 

* The passage as quoted in the text of the Summa difEers slightly 
from, the above, which is translated directly from the works of 
Dionysius. 



2i6 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. 4 

also to strengthen him in his outward combat. Consequently 
not only is mention made of interior sanctification, in the 
words, / confirm thee with the chrism of salvation : but further- 
more man is signed outwardly, as it were with the standard 
of the cross, unto the outward spiritual combat; and this 
is signified by the words, / sign thee with the sign of the cross. 

But in the very word baptize, which signifies to cleanse, 
we can understand both the matter, which is the cleansing 
water, and the effect, which is salvation. Whereas these 
are not understood by the word confirm ; and consequently 
they had to be expressed. 

Again, it has been said above (Q. LXVL, A. 5 ad 1.) that 
the pronoun / is not necessary to the Baptismal form, 
because it is included in the first person of the verb. It 
is, however, included in order to express the intention. But 
this does not seem so necessary in Confirmation, which is 
conferred only by a minister of excellence, as we shall state 
later on (A. 11). 

Fifth Article. 

whether the sacrament of confirmation imprints a 

character ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the sacrament of Confirmation 
does not imprint a character. For a character means a 
distinctive sign. But a man is not distinguished from un- 
believers by the sacrament of Confirmation, for this is the 
effect of Baptism; nor from the rest of the faithful, because 
this sacrament is ordained to the spiritual combat, which is 
enjoined to all the faithful. Therefore a character is not 
imprinted in this sacrament. 

Obj. 2. Further, it was stated above (Q. LXIIL, A. 2) 
that a character is a spiritual power. Now a power must 
be either active or passive. But the active power in the 
sacraments is conferred by the sacrament of Order: while 
the passive or receptive power is conferred by the sacra- 
ment of Baptism. Therefore no character is imprinted by 
the sacrament of Confirmation. 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 217 

Obj. 3. Further, in circumcision, which is a character of 
the body, no spiritual character is imprinted. But in this 
sacrament a character is imprinted on the body, when the 
sign of the cross is signed with chrism on man's brow. There- 
fore a spiritual character is not imprinted by this sacrament. 

On the contrary, A character is imprinted in every sacra- 
ment that is not repeated. But this sacrament is not re- 
peated: for Gregory (II.) says (Ep. iv. ad Bonifac.) : 
As to the man who was confirmed a second time by a bishop, 
such a repetition must be forbidden. Therefore a character 
is imprinted in Confirmation. 

/ answer that, As stated above (Q. LXIII., A. 2), a character 
is a spiritual power ordained to certain sacred actions. 
Now it has been said above (A. i; Q. LXV., A. i) that, just 
as Baptism is a spiritual regeneration unto Christian life, 
so also is Confirmation a certain spiritual growth bringing 
man to perfect spiritual age. But it is evident, from 
a comparison with the Hfe of the body, that the action 
which is proper to man immediately after birth, is different 
from the action which is proper to him when he has come 
to perfect age. And therefore by the sacrament of Con- 
firmation man is given a spiritual power in respect of sacred 
actions other than those in respect of which he receives 
power in Baptism. For in Baptism he receives power to do 
those things which pertain to his own salvation, forasmuch 
as he lives to himself: whereas in Confirmation he receives 
power to do those things which pertain to the spiritual 
combat with the enemies of the Faith. This is evident from 
the example of the apostles, who, before they received the 
fulness of the Holy Ghost, were in the upper room . . . per- 
severing . . . in prayer (Acts i. 13, 14); whereas afterwards 
they went out and feared not to confess their faith in public, 
even in the face of the enemies of the Christian Faith. And 
therefore it is evident that a character is imprinted in the 
sacrament of Confirmation. 

Reply Obj. 1. All have to wage the spiritual combat with 
our invisible enemies. But to fight against visible foes, 
viz., against the persecutors of the Faith, by confessing 



2i8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. 5 

Christ's name, belongs to the confirmed, who have already 
come spiritually to the age of virility, according to 
I John ii. 14: / write unto you, young men, because you are 
strong, and the word of God ahideth in you, and you have 
overcome the wicked one. And therefore the character of 
Confirmation is a distinctive sign, not between unbelievers 
and believers, but between those who are grown up spiritually 
and those of whom it is written: As new-horn babes (i Pet. 
ii. 2). 

Reply Obj. 2. All the sacraments are protestations of 
faith. Therefore just as he who is baptized receives the 
power of testifying to his faith by receiving the other sacra- 
ments; so he who is confirmed receives the power of pub- 
licly confessing his faith by words, as it were ex officio. 

Reply Obj. 3. The sacraments of the Old Law are called 
justice of the flesh (Heb. ix. 10) because, to wit, they wrought 
nothing inwardly. Consequently in Circumcision a char- 
acter was imprinted in the body only, but not in the soul. 
But in Confirmation, since it is a sacrament of the New Law, 
a spiritual character is imprinted at the same time, together 
with the bodily character. 

Sixth Article. 

whether the character of confirmation presupposes, 
of necessity, the baptismal character ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article :— 

Objection i. It seems that the character of Confirmation 
does not presuppose, of necessity, the baptismal character. 
For the sacrament of Confirmation is ordained to the public 
confession of the Faith of Christ. But many, even before 
Baptism, have publicly confessed the Faith of Christ by 
shedding their blood for the Faith. Therefore the character 
of Confirmation does not presuppose the baptismal character. 

Obj. 2. Further, it is not related of the apostles that they 
were baptized; especially, since it is written (John iv. 2) 
that Christ Himself did not baptize, but His disciples. Yet 
afterwards they were confirmed by the coming of the Holy 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 219 

Ghost. Therefore, in hke manner, others can be confirmed 
before being baptized. 

Obj. 3. Further, it is written (Acts. x. 44-48) that while 
Peter was yet speaking . . . the Holy Ghost fell on all them 
that heard the word, . . . and (Vulg., for) they heard them 
speaking with tongues : and afterwards he commanded them 
to he baptized. Therefore others with equal reason can be 
confirmed before being baptized. 

On the contrary, Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric, i.): 
Lastly the Paraclete is given to the baptized by the imposition 
of the high priesfs hands, in order that the baptized may be 
strengthened by the Holy Ghost so as to publish his faith. 

I answer that, The character of Confirmation, of necessity 
supposes the baptismal character: so that, in effect, if one 
who is not baptized were to be confirmed, he would receive 
nothing, but would have to be confirmed again after 
receiving Baptism. The reason of this is that. Confirmation 
is to Baptism as growth to birth, as is evident from what 
has been said above (A. i.; Q. LXV., A. i). Now it is clear 
that no one can be brought to perfect age unless he be first 
bom: and in like manner, unless a man be first baptized, 
he cannot receive the sacrament of Confirmation. 

Reply Obj. i. The Divine power is not confined to the 
sacraments. Hence man can receive spiritual strength to 
confess the Faith of Christ publicly, without receiving the 
sacrament of Confirmation: just as he can also receive re- 
mission of sins without Baptism. Yet, just as none receive 
the effect of Baptism without the desire of Baptism; so 
none receive the effect of Confirmation, without the desire 
of Confirmation. And man can have this even before 
receiving Baptism. 

Reply Obj. 2. As Augustine says (Ep. cclxv.), from Our 
Lord's words, ' He that is washed, needeth not hut to wash 
his feet ' (John xiii. 10), we gather that Peter and Christ's 
other disciples had been baptized, either with John's Baptism, 
as some think ; or with Christ's, which is more credible. For 
He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants 
by whom to baptize others. 



220 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. 6 

Reply Ohj, 3. Those who heard the preaching of Peter 
received the effect of Confirmation miraculously: but not 
the sacrament of Confirmation. Now it has been stated 
{ad i) that the effect of Confirmation can be bestowed on 
man before Baptism, whereas the sacrament cannot. For 
just as the effect of Confirmation, which is spiritual strength, 
presupposes the effect of Baptism, which is justification, so 
the sacrament of Confirmation presupposes the sacrament 
of Baptism. 

Seventh Article. 

whether sanctifying grace is bestowed in this 

sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that sanctifying grace is not be- 
stowed in this sacrament. For sanctifying grace is ordained 
against sin. But this sacrament, as stated above (A. 6) is 
given only to the baptized, who are cleansed from sin. 
Therefore sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this sacrament. 

Obj. 2. Further, sinners especially need sanctifpng grace, 
by which alone can they be justified. If, therefore, sanctify- 
ing grace is bestowed in this sacrament, it seems that it should 
be given to those who are in sin. And yet this is not true. 

Obj. 3. Further, there can "only be one species of sanctify- 
ing grace, since it is ordained to one effect. But two forms 
of the same species cannot be in the same subject. Since, 
therefore, man receives sanctifying grace in Baptism, it 
seems that sanctifying grace is not bestowed in Confirma- 
tion, which is given to none but the baptized. 

On the contrary, Pope Melchiades says {Ep. ad Episc. 
Hispan.) : The Holy Ghost bestows at the font the fulness of 
innocence ; but in C onfirmation He confers an increase of grace. 

I answer that, In this sacrament, as stated above (AA. 1,4), 
the Holy Ghost is given to the baptized for strength: just 
as He was given to the apostles on the day of Pentecost, 
as we read in Acts ii.; and just as He was given to the bap- 
tized by the imposition of the apostles' hands, as related in 
Acts viii. 17. Now it has been proved in the First Part 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 221 

(Q. 43, A. 3) that the Holy Ghost is not sent or given except 
with sanctifying grace. Consequently it is evident that 
sanctifying grace is bestowed in this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. i. Sanctifying grace does indeed take away 
sin ; but it has other effects also, because it suffices to carry 
man through every step as far as eternal life. Hence to 
Paul was it said (2 Cor. xii. 9) : My grace is sufficient for 
thee : and he says of himself (i Cor. xv. 10) : By the grace 
of God I am what I am. Therefore sanctifying grace is given 
not only for the remission of sin, but also for growth and 
stability in righteousness. And thus is it bestowed in this 
sacrament. 

Reply Ohj, 2. Further, as appears from its very name, this 
sacrament is given in order to confirm what it finds already 
there. And consequently it should not be given to those 
who are not in a state of grace. For this reason, just as 
it is not given to the unbaptized, so neither should it be 
given to the adult sinners, except they be restored by Pen- 
ance. Wherefore was it decreed in the Council of Orleans 
(Can. iii.) that men should come to Confirmation fasting ; 
and should he admonished to confess their sins first, so that 
heing cleansed they may he ahle to receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. And then this sacrament perfects the effects of 
Penance, as of Baptism : because by the grace which he has 
received in this sacrament, the penitent will obtain fuller 
remission of his sin. — And if any adult approach, being in a 
state of sin of which he is not conscious or for which he is 
not perfectly contrite, he will receive the remission of his 
sins through the grace bestowed in this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As stated above (Q. LXIL, A. 2), the sacra- 
mental grace adds to the sanctifying grace taken in its 
wide sense, something that produces a special effect, and to 
which the sacrament is ordained. If, then, we consider, 
in its wide sense, the grace bestowed in this sacrament, it 
does not differ from that bestowed in Baptism, but in- 
creases what was already there. On the other hand, if 
we consider it as to that which is added over and above, 
then one differs in species from the other. 



222 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. 8 

Eighth Article, 
whether this sacrament should be given to all ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that this sacrament should not be 
given to all. For this sacrament is given in order to confer 
a certain excellence, as stated above (A. 11 ad 2). But all 
are not suited for that which belongs to excellence. There- 
fore this sacrament should not be given to all. 

Ob]. 2. Further, by this sacrament man advances 
spiritually to perfect age. But perfect age is inconsistent 
with childhood. Therefore at least it should not be given 
to children. 

Obj. 3. Further, as Pope Melchiades says {Ep. ad Episc. 
Hispan.), after Baptism we are strengthened for the combat. 
But women are incompetent to combat, by reason of the 
frailty of their sex. Therefore neither should women receive 
this sacrament. 

Obj. 4. Further, Pope Melchiades says (ibid.) : Although 
the benefit of Regeneration suffices for those who are on the 
point of death, yet the graces of Confirmation are necessary 
for those who are to conquer. Confirmation arms and 
strengthens those to whom the struggles and combats of this 
world are reserved. And he who comes to die, having kept 
unsullied the innocence he acquired in Baptism, is confirmed 
by death ; for after death he can sin no more. Therefore this 
sacrament should not be given to those who are on the point 
of death: and so it should not be given to all. 

On the contrary, It is written (Acts ii. 2) that the Holy 
Ghost in coming, filled the whole house, whereby the Church 
is signified; and afterwards it is added that they were all 
filled with the Holy Ghost. But this sacrament is given that 
we may receive that fulness. Therefore it should be given 
to all who belong to the Church. 

/ answer that, As stated above (A. i), man is spiritually 
advanced by this sacrament to perfect age. Now the 
intention of nature is that everyone born corporally, should 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 223 

come to perfect age: yet this is sometimes hindered by 
reason of the corruptibihty of the body, which is forestalled 
by death. But much more is it God's intention to bring 
all things to perfection, since nature shares in this intention 
inasmuch as it reflects Him: hence it is written (Deut. 
xxxii. 4) : The works of God are perfect. Now the soul, to 
which spiritual birth and perfect spiritual age belong, is 
immortal; and just as it can in old age attain to spiritual 
birth, so can it attain to perfect (spiritual) age in youth or 
childhood ; because the various ages of the body do not affect 
the soul. Therefore this sacrament should be given to all. 

Reply Ohj. i. This sacrament is given in order to confer 
a certain excellence, not indeed, like the sacrament of Order, 
of one man over another, but of man in regard to himself : 
thus the same man, when arrived at maturity, excels him- 
self as he was when a boy. 

Reply Ohj. 2. As stated above, the age of the body does 
not affect the soul. Consequently even in childhood man 
can attain to the perfection of spiritual age, of which it is 
written (Wis. iv. 8): Venerable old age is not that of long 
time, nor counted by the number of years. And hence it is 
that many children, by reason of the strength of the Holy 
Ghost which they had received, fought bravely for Christ 
even to the shedding of their blood. 

Reply Obj. 3. As Chrysostom says {Hom. i. De Machab.), 
in earthly contests fitness of age, physique and rank are re- 
quired ; and consequently slaves, women, old men, and hoys 
are debarred from taking part therein. But in the heavenly 
combats, the Stadium is open equally to all, to every age, and 
to either sex. Again, he says (Horn, de Militia Spirit.) : 
In God's eyes even women fight, for many a woman has waged 
the spiritual warfare with the courage of a man. For some 
have rivalled men in the courage with which they have suffered 
martyrdom ; and some indeed have shown themselves stronger 
than men. Therefore this sacrament should be given to 
women. 

Reply Obj. 4. As we have already observed, the soul, to 
which spiritual age belongs^ is immortal. Wherefore this 



224 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. 8 

sacrament should be given to those on the point of death, 
that they may be seen to be perfect at the resurrection, 
according to Eph. iv. 13: Until we all meet into the unity 
of faith . . . unto the measure of the age of the fulness of 
Christ. And hence Hugh of S. Victor says {De Sacram. ii.)> 
It would be altogether hazardous, if anyone happened to go 
forth from this life without being confirmed : not that such a 
one would be lost, except perhaps through contempt; but 
that this would be detrimental to his perfection. And there- 
fore even children dying after Confirmation obtain greater 
glory, just as here below they receive more grace .^ — -The 
passage quoted is to be taken in the sense that, with regard 
to the dangers of the present combat, those who are on the 
point of death do not need this sacrament. 

Ninth Article. 

whether this sacrament should be given to man on 

the forehead ? 

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that this sacrament should not be 
given to man on the forehead. For this sacrament perfects 
Baptism, as stated above (Q. LXV., AA. 3, 4). But the 
sacrament of Baptism is given to man over his whole body. 
Therefore this sacrament should not be given on the fore- 
head only. 

Obj. 2. Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual 
strength, as stated above (AA. i, 2, 4). But spiritual strength 
is situated principally in the heart. Therefore this sacrament 
should be given over the heart rather than on the forehead. 

Obj. 3. Further, this sacrament is given to man that he 
may freely confess the .faith of Christ. But with the mouth, 
confession is made unto salvation, according to Rom. x. 10. 
Therefore this sacrament should be given about the mouth 
rather than on the forehead. 

On the contrary, Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric, i.): The 
baptized is signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the 
head, but by the bishop on the forehead. 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 225 

« / answer that, As stated above (AA. i, 4), in this sacrament 
man receives the Holy Ghost for strength in the spiritual 
combat, that he may bravely confess the Faith of Christ 
even in face of the enemies of that Faith. Wherefore he is 
fittingly signed with the sign of the cross on the forehead, 
with chrism, for two reasons. First, because he is signed 
with the sign of the cross, as a soldier with the sign of his 
leader, which should be evident and manifest. Now, the 
forehead, which is hardly ever covered, is the most con- 
spicuous part of the human body. Wherefore the confirmed 
is anointed with chrism on the forehead, that he may show 
publicly that he is a Christian : thus too the apostles after 
receiving the Holy Ghost showed themselves in public, 
whereas before they remained hidden in the upper room. 

Secondly, because man is hindered from freely confessing 
Christ's name, by two things, — by fear and by shame. 
Now both these things betray themselves principally on the 
forehead, on account of the proximity of the imagination, 
and because the (vital) spirits mount directly from the heart 
to the forehead: hence those who are ashamed^, blush, and 
those who are afraid, pale (Ethic, iv.). And therefore man 
is signed with chrism, that neither fear nor shame may 
hinder him from confessing the name of Christ. 

Reply Ohj. i. By Baptism we are regenerated unto spiri- 
tual life, which belongs to the whole man. But in Conlirma- 
tion we are strengthened for the combat ; the sign of which 
should be borne on the forehead, as in a conspicuous place. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The principle of fortitude is in the heart, 
but its sign appears on the forehead : wherefore it is written 
(Ezech. iii. 8): Behold I have made . . . thy forehead harder 
than their foreheads. Hence the sacrament of the Eucharist, 
whereby man is confirmed in himself, belongs to the heart, 
according to Ps. ciii. 15 : That bread may strengthen man's 
heart. But the sacrament of Confirmation is required as a 
sign of fortitude against others; and for this reason it is 
given on the forehead. 

Reply Ohj. 3. This sacrament is given that we may con- 
fess freely: but not that we may confess simply, for this 

"I. 3 15 



226 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. 9 

is also the effect of Baptism. And therefore it should not 
be given on the mouth, but on the forehead, where appear 
the signs of those passions which hinder free confession. 



Tenth Article, 
whether he who is confirmed needs one to stand* 

FOR HIM ? 

We proceed thus to the Tenth A f tide : — • 

Objection i. It seems that he who is confirmed needs no 
one to stand for him. For this sacrament is given not only 
to children but also to adults. But adults can stand for 
themselves. Therefore it is absurd that someone else 
should stand for them. 

Ohj. 2. Further, he that belongs already to the Church, 
has free access to the prince of the Church, i.e., the bishop. 
But this sacrament, as stated above (A. 6), is given only to 
one that is baptized, who is already a member of the Church. 
Therefore it seems that he should not be brought by another 
to the bishop in order to receive this sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual 
strength, which has more vigour in men than in women, 
according to Prov. xxxi. 10 : Who shall find a valiant woman ? 
Therefore at least a woman should not stand for a man in 
confirmation. 

On the contrary, Are the following words of Pope Innocent, 
which are to be found in the Decretals (XXX., Q. 4) : If any- 
one raise the children of another's marriage from the sacred font, 
or stand for them in Confirmation, etc. Therefore, just as 
someone is required as sponsor of one who is baptized, so 
is someone required to stand for him who is to be confirmed. 

/ answer that. As stated above (A A. i, 4, 9), this sacra- 
ment is given to man for strength in the spiritual combat. 
Now, just as one newly born requires someone to teach 
him things pertaining to ordinary conduct, according to 
Heb. xii. 9: We have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, 
and we obeyed (Vulg., reverenced) them; so they who are 

* Literally, to hold him. 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 227 

chosen for the fight need instructors by whom they are 
informed of things concerning the conduct of the battle, 
and hence in earthly wars, generals and captains are ap- 
pointed to the command of the others. For this reason he 
also who receives this sacrament, has someone to stand for 
him, who, as it were, has to instruct him concerning the 
fight. 

Likewise, since this sacrament bestows on man the per- 
fection of spiritual age, as stated above (AA. 2, 5), therefore 
he who approaches this sacrament is upheld by another, 
as being spiritually a weakling and a child. 

Reply Ohj. i. Although he who is confirmed, be adult in 
body, nevertheless he is not yet spiritually adult. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Though he who is baptized is made a 
member of the Church, nevertheless he is not yet enrolled 
as a Christian soldier. And therefore he is brought to the 
bishop, as to the commander of the army, by one who is 
already enrolled as a Christian soldier. For one who is not 
yet confirmed should not stand for another in Confirma- 
tion. 

Reply Ohj. 3. According to Col. iii. (Gal. iii. 28),* in 
Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. Consequently 
it matters not whether a man or a woman stand for one 
who is to be confirmed. 

Eleventh Article, 
whether only a bishop can confer this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Eleventh Article : — 

Ohjection i. It seems that not only a bishop can confer 
this sacrament. For Gregory (Regist. iv.), writing to Bishop 
Januarius, says: We hear that some were scandalized because 
we forbade priests to anoint with chrism those who have been 
baptized. Yet in doing this we followed the ancient custom 
of our Church : hut if this trouble some so very much, we permit 
priests, where no bishop is to be had, to anoint the baptized 
on the forehead with chrism. But that which is essential to 

* See note on I., Q. XCIII., A. 6. 



228 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. ii 

the sacraments should not be changed for the purpose of 
avoiding scandal. Therefore it seems that it is not essential 
to this sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the sacrament of Baptism seems to be 
more efficacious than the sacrament of Confirmation: since 
it bestows full remission of sins, both as to guilt and as to 
punishment, whereas this sacrament does not. But a simple 
priest, in virtue of his office, can give the sacrament of 
Baptism: and in a case of necessity anyone, even without 
Orders, can baptize. Therefore it is not essential to this 
sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop. 

Ohj. 3. Further, the top of the head, where according to 
medical men the reason is situated [i.e., the particular 
reason, which is called the cogitative faculty), is more noble 
than the forehead, which is the site of the imagination. 
But a simple priest can anoint the baptized with chrism 
on the top of the head. Therefore much more can he anoint 
them with chrism on the forehead, which belongs to this 
sacrament. 

On the contrary, Pope Eusebius (Ep. iii. ad Ep. Tusc.) 
says: The sacrament of the imposition of the hand should 
he held in great veneration, and can he given by none hut the 
high priests. Nor is it related or known to have heen con- 
ferred in apostolic times hy others than the apostles themselves ; 
nor can it ever he either licitly or validly performed hy others 
than those who stand in their place. And if anyone presume 
to do otherwise, it must he considered null and void ; nor will 
such a thing ever he counted among the sacraments of the 
Church. Therefore it is essential to this sacrament, which 
is called the sacrament of the imposition of the hand, that it be 
given by a bishop. 

/ answer that. In every work the final completion is 
reserved to the supreme act or power; thus the preparation 
of the matter belongs to the lower craftsmen, the higher 
gives the form, but the highest of all is he to whom pertains 
the use, which is the end of things made by art; thus also 
the letter which is written by the clerk, is signed by his 
employer. iNiow the faithful of Christ are a Divine work, 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 229 

according to i Cor. iii. 9 : You are God's building ; and they 
are also an epistle, as it were, written with the Spirit of God, 
according to 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3. And this sacrament of Con- 
firmation is, as it were, the final completion of the sacra- 
ment of Baptism ; in the sense that by Baptism man is built 
up into a spiritual dwelling, and is written like a spiritual 
letter; whereas by the sacrament of Confirmation, like a 
house already built, he is consecrated as a temple of the 
Holy Ghost, and as a letter already written, is signed with 
the sign of the cross. Therefore the conferring of this sacra- 
ment is reserved to bishops, who possess supreme power in 
the Church: just as in the primitive Church, the fulness of 
the Holy Ghost was given by the apostles, in whose place 
the bishops stand (Acts viii.). Hence Pope Urban (I.) says: 
All the faithful should, after Baptism, receive the Holy Ghost by 
the imposition of the bishop^s hand, that they may become 
perfect Christians. 

Reply Obj. i. The Pope has the plenitude of power in the 
Church, in virtue of which he can commit to certain lower 
orders things that belong to the higher orders: thus he 
allows priests to confer minor orders, which belong to the 
episcopal power. And in virtue of this fulness of power 
the Pope, Blessed Gregory, allowed simple priests to confer 
this sacrament, so long as the scandal was ended. 

Reply Obj. 2. The sacrament of Baptism is more efficacious 
than this sacrament as to the removal of evil, since it is a 
spiritual birth, that consists in change from non-being to 
being. But this sacrament is more efficacious for progress 
in good; since it is a spiritual growth from imperfect being 
to perfect being. And hence this sacrament is committed 
to a more worthy minister. 

Reply Obj. 3. As Rabanus says (De Instil. Cleric, i.), the 
baptized is signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the 
head, but by the bishop on the forehead, that the former unction 
may symbolize the descent of the Holy Ghost on him, in order 
to consecrate a dwelling to God : and that the second also 
may teach us that the sevenfold grace of the same Holy Ghost 
descends on man with all fulness of sanctity, knowledge and 



230 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 72. Art. 11 

virtue. Hence this unction is reserved to bishops, not on 
account of its being applied to a more worthy part of the 
body, but by reason of its having a more powerful effect. 

Twelfth Article, 
whether the rite of this sacrament is appropriate ? 

We proceed thus to the Twelfth Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that the rite of this sacrament is 
not appropriate. For the sacrament of Baptism is of 
greater necessity than this, as stated above (A. 2 ad 4; 
Q. LXV., AA. 3, 4). But certain seasons are fixed for 
Baptism, viz., Easter and Pentecost. Therefore some fixed 
time of the year should be chosen for this sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, just as this sacrament requires devotion 
both in the giver and in the receiver, so also does the sacra- 
ment of Baptism. But in the sacrament of Baptism it is 
not necessary that it should be received or given fasting. 
Therefore it seems unfitting for the Council of Orleans to 
declare that those who come to Confirmation should he fasting ; 
and the Council of Meaux, that bishops should not give the 
Holy Ghost with imposition of the hand except they be fasting. 

Obj. 3. Further, chrism is a sign of the fulness of the 
Holy Ghost, as stated above (A. 2). But the fulness of the 
Holy Ghost was given to Christ's faithful on the day of 
Pentecost, as related in Acts ii. i. Therefore the chrism 
should be mixed and blessed on the day of Pentecost rather 
than on Maundy Thursday. 

On the contrary Is the use of the Church, who is governed 
by the Holy Ghost. 

I answer that. Our Lord promised His faithful (Matth. 
xviii. 20) saying: Where there are two or three gathered together 
in My name, there am I in the midst of them. And therefore we 
must hold firmly that the Church's ordinations are directed 
by the wisdom of Christ. And for this reason we must look 
upon it as certain that the rite observed by the Church, in 
this and the other sacraments, is appropriate. 

Reply Ohj. i. As Pope Melchiades says {Ep. ad Ep. 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION 231 

Hisp.), these two sacraments, viz., Baptism and Confirma- 
tion, are so closely connected that they can nowise he separ- 
ated save by death intervening, nor can one he duly celehrated 
without the other. Consequently the same seasons are fixed 
for the solemn celebration of Baptism and of this sacrament. 
But since this sacrament is given only by bishops, who are 
not always present where priests are baptizing, it was 
necessary, as regards the common use, to defer the sacra- 
ment of Confirmation to other seasons also. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The sick and those in danger of death are 
exempt from this prohibition, as we read in the decree of the 
Council of Meaux. And therefore, on account of the multi- 
tude of the faithful, and on account of imminent dangers, 
it is allowed for this sacrament, which can be given by none 
but a bishop, to be given or received even by those who are 
not fasting: since one bishop, especially in a large diocese, 
would not suffice to confirm all, if he were confined to certain 
times. But where it can be done conveniently, it is more 
becoming that both giver and receiver should be fasting. 

Reply Ohj. 3. According to the acts of the Council of 
Pope Martin, it was lawful at all times to prepare the chrism. 
But since solemn Baptism, for which chrism has to be used, 
is celebrated on Easter Eve, it was rightly decreed, that 
chrism should be consecrated by the bishop two days before- 
hand, that it may be sent to the various parts of the diocese. 
Moreover, this day is sufficiently appropriate to the blessing 
of sacramental matter, since thereon was the Eucharist in- 
stituted, to which, in a certain way, all the other sacraments 
are ordained, as stated above (Q. LXV., A. 3). 



QUESTION LXXIII. 

OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST. 
[In Six Articles.) 

We have now to consider the sacrament of the Eucharist; 
and first of all we treat of the sacrament itself ; secondly, of 
its matter ; thirdly, of its form ; fourthly, of its effects ; fifthly, 
of the recipients of this sacrament ; sixthly, of the minister ; 
seventhly, of the rite. 

Under the first heading there are six points of inquiry: 
(i) Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament ? (2) Whether 
it is one or several sacraments ? (3) Whether it is necessary 
for salvation ? (4) Its names. (5) Its institution. (6) Its 
figures. 

First Article. 
Whether the Eucharist is a Sacrament ? 

We froceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the Eucharist is not a sacra- 
ment. For two sacraments ought not to be ordained for 
the same end, because every sacrament is efficacious in 
producing its effect. Therefore, since both Confirmation 
and the Eucharist are ordained for perfection, as Dionysius 
says (Eccl. Hier. iv.), it seems that the Eucharist is not a 
sacrament, since Confirmation is one, as stated above 
(Q.LXV.,A. i;Q.LXXII.,A. I). 

Ohj. 2. Further, in every sacrament of the New Law, that 
which comes visibly under our senses causes the invisible 
effect of the sacrament, just as cleansing with water causes 
the baptismal character and spiritual cleansing, as stated 
above (Q. LXIII., A. 6; Q. LXVL, AA. i, 3, 7). But the 

232 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST 233 

species of bread and wine, which are the objects of our senses 
in this sacrament, neither produce Christ's true body, which 
is both reality and sacrament, nor His mystical body, which 
is the reality only in the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that 
the Eucharist is not a sacrament of the New Law. 

Ohj, 3. Further, Sacraments of the New Law, as having 
matter, are perfected by the use of the matter, as Baptism 
is by ablution, and Confirmation by signing with chrism, 
n, then, the Eucharist be a sacrament, it would be perfected 
by the use of the matter, and not by its consecration. But 
this is manifestly false, because the words spoken in the 
consecration of the matter are the form of this sacrament, 
as will be shown later on (Q. LXXVIIL, A. i). Therefore 
the Eucharist is not a sacrament. 

On the contrary, It is said in the Collect* : May this Thy 
Sacrament not make us deserving of punishment. 

I answer that, The Church's sacraments are ordained for 
helping man in the spiritual life. But the spiritual life is 
analogous to the corporeal, since corporeal things bear a 
resemblance to spiritual. Now it is clear that just as 
generation is required for corporeal life, since thereby man 
receives life; and growth, whereby man is brought to 
maturity: so likewise food is required for the preserva- 
tion of life. Consequently, just as for the spiritual life 
there had to be Baptism, which is spiritual generation ; and 
Confirmation, which is spiritual growth: so there needed 
to be the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual 
food. 

Reply Ohj. i. Perfection is twofold. The first lies within 
man himself; and he attains it by growth: such perfection 
belongs to Confirmation. The other is the perfection which 
comes to man from the addition of food, or clothing, or some- 
thing of the kind; and such is the perfection befitting the 
Eucharist, which is the spiritual refreshment. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The water of Baptism does not cause any 
spiritual effect by reason of the water, but by reason of the 
power of the Holy Ghost, which power is in the water. 

* Postcommunion ' pro vivis et defunctis.' 



234 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 73. Art. i 

Hence on John v. 4, An angel of the Lord at certain times, etc., 
Chrysostom observes: The water does not act simply as such 
upon the baptized, but when it receives the grace of the Holy 
Ghost, then it looses all sins. But the true body of Christ 
bears the same relation to the species of the bread and wine, 
as the power of the Holy Ghost does to the water of Baptism : 
hence the species of the bread and wine produce no effect 
except from the virtue of Christ's true body. 

Reply Obj. 3. A sacrament is so termed because it contains 
something sacred. Now a thing can be styled sacred from 
two causes; either absolutely, or in relation to something 
else. The difference between the Eucharist and other sacra- 
ments having sensible matter, is that whereas the Eucharist 
contains something which is sacred absolutely, namely, 
Christ's own body; the baptismal water contains something 
which is sacred in relation to something else, namely, the 
sanctifying power: and the same holds good of chrism and 
suchlike. Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is 
completed in the very consecration of the matter, whereas 
the other sacraments are completed in the application of the 
matter for the sanctifying of the individual. And from this 
follows another difference. For, in the sacrament of the 
Eucharist, what is both reality and sacrament is in the 
matter itself; but what is reality only, namely, the grace 
bestowed, is in the recipient; whereas in Baptism both are 
in the recipient, namely, the character, which is both reality 
and sacrament, and the grace of pardon of sins, which is 
reality only. And the same holds good of the other 
sacraments. 

Second Article, 
whether the eucharist is one sacrament or several ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — • 

Objection i. It seems that the Eucharist is not one sacra- 
ment but several, because it is said in the Collect* : May the 
sacraments which we have received purify us, Lord : and this 

* Postcommunion ' pro vivis et defunctis.' 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST 235 

is said on account of our receiving the Eucharist. Con- 
sequently the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several. 

Ohj. 2. Further, it is impossible for genera to be multi- 
plied without the species being multiplied : thus it is impos- 
sible for one man to be many animals. But, as stated above 
(Q. LX., A. i), sign is the genus of sacrament. Since, then, 
there are more signs than one, to wit, bread and wine, it 
seems to follow that here must be more sacraments than one. 

Ohj. 3. Further, this sacrament is perfected in the conse- 
cration of the matter, as stated above (A. i ad '^). But in 
this sacrament there is a double consecration of the matter. 
Therefore, it is a twofold sacrament. 

On the contrary, The Apostle says (i Cor. x. 17) : For we, 
being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one 
bread: from which it is clear that the Eucharist is the 
sacrament of the Church's unity. But a sacrament bears 
the likeness of the reality whereof it is the sacrament. 
Therefore the Eucharist is one sacrament. 

I answer that, As stated in Metaph. v., a thing is said to be 
one, not only from being indivisible, or continuous, but also 
when it is complete; thus we speak of one house, and one 
man. A thing is one in perfection, when it is complete 
through the presence of all that is needed for its end; as a 
man is complete by having all the members required for the 
operation of his soul, and a house by having all the parts 
needful for dwelling therein. And so this sacrament is said 
to be one. Because it is ordained for spiritual refreshment, 
which is conformed to corporeal refreshment. Now there are 
two things required for corporeal refreshment, namely, food, 
which is dry sustenance, and drink, which is wet sustenance. 
Consequently, two things concur for the integrity of this 
sacrament, to wit, spiritual food and spiritual drink, accord- 
ing to John: My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink 
indeed. Therefore, this sacrament is materially many, but 
formally and perfectively one. 

Reply Obj. i. The same Collect at first employs the 
plural: May the sacraments which we have received purify 
us ; and afterwards the singular number: May this 



236 THE '[ SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 73. Art. 2 

sacrament of Thine not make us worthy of punishment : so as 
to show that this sacrament is in a measure several, yet 
simply one. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The bread and wine are materially several 
signs, yet formally and perfectively one, inasmuch as one 
refreshment is prepared therefrom. 

Reply Ohj. 3. From the double consecration of the matter 
no more can be gathered than that the sacrament is several 
materially, as stated above. 

Third Article. 

whether the eucharist is necessary for 
salvation ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that this sacrament is necessary for 
salvation. For Our Lord said (John vi. 54) : Except you eat 
the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not 
have life in you. But Christ's flesh is eaten and His blood 
drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament 
man cannot have the health of spiritual life. 

Obj. 2. Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. 
But bodily food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, 
also is this sacrament, for spiritual health. 

Obj. 3. Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of Our Lord's 
Passion, without which there is no salvation, so also is the 
Eucharist. For the Apostle says (i Cor. xi, 26) : For as 
often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall 
show the death of the Lord, until He come. Consequently, as 
Baptism is necessary for salvation, so also is this sacrament. 

On the contrary, Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac, contra 
Pelag. I.) : Nor are you to suppose that children cannot 
possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of Christ. 

I answer that. Two things have to be considered in this 
sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is con- 
tained in it. Now it was stated above (A. i, Obj . 2) that 
the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical 
body, without which there can be no salvation ; for there is no 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST 237 

entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the 
time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which 
denotes the Church, according to i Pet. iii. 20, 21. And it 
has been said above (Q. LXVIH., A. 2), that before receiving 
a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through 
the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, 
before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain 
salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can 
before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated 
above (Q. LXVIIL, A. 2). Yet there is a difference in two 
respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of 
the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments ; whereas 
the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation of the 
spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was 
observed above (Q. LXIIL, A. 6) : for by the hallowings of all 
the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or conse- 
crating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of 
Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the 
receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation ; 
by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end 
is possessed in desire and intention. Another difference is 
because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and 
therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are 
destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they 
believe through the Church's faith, so they desire the 
Eucharist through the Church's intention, and, as a result, 
receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism 
by any previous sacrament, and consequently, before 
receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire ; 
but adults alone have : consequently, they cannot have the 
reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament 
itself. Therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salva- 
tion in the same way as Baptism is. 

Reply Ohj. i. As Augustine says, explaining John vi. 54, 
This food and this drink, namely, of His flesh and blood : 
He would have us understand the fellowship of His body and 
members, which is the Church in His predestinated, and called, 
and justified, and glorified. His holy and believing ones. 



238 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 73. Art. 3 

Hence, as he says in his Epistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, 
in I Cor. x. 17) : No one should entertain the slightest doubt, 
that then every one of the faithful becomes a partaker of the 
body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a member 
of Chrisfs body ; nor is he deprived of his share in that body 
and chalice even though he depart from this world in the unity of 
Chrisfs body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that chalice. 

Reply Obj. 2. The difference between corporeal and 
spiritual food lies in this, that the former is changed into 
the substance of the person nourished, and consequently it 
cannot avail for supporting life except it be partaken of ; but 
spiritual food changes man into itself, according to that 
saying of Augustine {Conf. vii.), that he heard the voice of 
Christ as it were saying to him : Nor shall thou change Me into 
thyself, as food of thy flesh, but thou shall be changed into Me. 
But one can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in. 
Him by mental desire, even without receiving this sacra- 
ment. And consequently the comparison does not hold. 

Reply Obj. 3. Baptism is the sacrament of Christ's death 
and Passion, according as a man is born anew in Christ in 
virtue of His Passion ; but the Eucharist is the sacrament of 
Christ's Passion according as a man is made perfect in union 
with Christ Who suffered. Hence, as Baptism is called 
the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of the 
spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed the sacrament of 
Charity, which is the bond of perfection (Col. iii. 14). 

Fourth Article. 

whether this sacrament is suitably call&d by 
various names ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. H seems that this sacrament is not suitably 
called by various names. For names should correspond with 
things. But this sacrament is one, as stated above (A. 2). 
Therefore, it ought not to be called by various names. 

Obj. 2. Further, a species is not properly denominated by 
what is common to the whole genus. But the Eucharist is 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST 239 

a sacrament of the New Law; and it is common to all the 
sacraments for grace to be conferred by them, which the 
name Eucharist denotes, for it is the same thing as good 
grace. Furthermore, all the sacraments bring us help on our 
journey through this present life, which is the notion con- 
veyed by Viaticum. Again something sacred is done in 
all the sacraments, which belongs to the notion of Sacri- 
fice ; and the faithful intercommunicate through all the 
sacraments, which this Greek word Svva^i^ and the Latin 
Communio express. Therefore, these names are not suitably 
adapted to this sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, a host* seems to be the same as a sacrifice. 
Therefore, as it is not properly called a sacrifice, so neither 
is it properly termed a Host. 

On the contrary, Is the use of these expressions by the 
faithful. 

/ answer that, This sacrament has a threefold significance : 
one with regard to the past, inasmuch as it is commemorative 
of Our Lord's Passion, which was a true sacrifice, as stated 
above (Q. XLVIIL, A. 3), and in this respect it is called a 
Sacrifice. 

With regard to the present it has another meaning, namely, 
that of Ecclesiastical unity, in which men are aggregated 
through this Sacrament; and in this respect it is called 
Communion or Svva^t^. For Damascene says (De Fide 
Orthod. iv.) that it is called Communion because we communi- 
cate with Christ through it, both because we partake of His 
flesh and Godhead, and because we communicate with and are 
united to one another through it. 

With regard to the future it has a third meaning, inas- 
much as this sacrament foreshadows the Divine fruition, 
which shall come to pass in heaven; and according to this 
it is called Viaticum, because it supplies the way of winning 
thither. And in this respect it is also called the Eucharist, 
that is, good grace, because the grace of God is life everlasting 
(Rom. vi. 23); or because it really contains Christ, Who is 
full of grace. 

* From Latin hostia, a victim. 



240 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 73. Art. 4 

In Greek, moreover, it is called MeToXTj-^i^, i.e., Assump- 
tion, because, as Damascene says {loc. cit.), we thereby assume 
the Godhead of the Son. 

Reply Ohj. i. There is nothing to hinder the same thing 
from being called by several names, according to its various 
properties or effects. 

Reply Ohj. 2. What is common to all the sacraments is 
attributed antonomastically to this one on account of its 
excellence. 

Reply Ohj. 3. This sacrament is called a Sacrifice inas- 
much as it represents the Passion of Christ ; but it is termed 
a Host inasmuch as it contains Christ, Who is a host (Douay, 
— sacrifice) . . . of sweetness (Eph. v. 2). 

Fifth Article. 

whether the institution of this sacrament was 

appropriate ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the institution of this sacrament 
was not appropriate, because as the Philosopher says (De 
Gener. ii.): We are nourished hy the things from whence we 
spring. But by Baptism, which is spiritual regeneration, 
we receive our spiritual being, as Dionysius says {Eccl. Hier. 
ii.). Therefore we are also nourished by Baptism. Conse- 
quently there was no need to institute this sacrament as 
spiritual nourishment. 

Ohj. 2. Furthei^ men are united with Christ through this 
sacrament as the members with the head. But Christ is 
the Head of all men, even of those who have existed from 
the beginning of the world, as stated above (Q. VIII., 
AA. 3, 6). Therefore the institution of this sacrament 
should not have been postponed till the Lord's supper. 

Obj. 3. Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of 
Our Lord's Passion, according to Matth. xxvi. (Luke xxii. 
ig) : Do this for a commemoration of Me. But a com- 
memoration is of things past. Therefore, this sacrament 
should not have been instituted before Christ's Passion. 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST 24I 

Obj. 4. Further, a man is prepared by Baptism for the 
Eucharist, which ought to be given only to the baptized. 
But Baptism was instituted by Christ after His Passion and 
Resurrection, as is evident from Matth. xxviii. ig. There- 
fore, this sacrament was not suitably instituted before 
Christ's Passion. 

On the contrary, This sacrament was instituted by Christ, 
of Whom it is said (Mark vii. 37) that He did all things well. 
I answer that, This sacrament was appropriately insti- 
tuted at the supper, when Christ conversed with His 
disciples for the last time. First of all, because of what is 
contained in the sacrament : for Christ is Himself contained 
in the Eucharist sacramentally. Consequently, when Christ 
was going to leave His disciples in His proper species. He 
left Himself with them under the sacramental species ; as the 
Emperor's image is set up to be reverenced in his absence. 
Hence Eusebius says: Since He was going to withdraw His 
assumed body from their eyes, and bear it away to the stars, it 
was needful that on the day of the supper He should consecrate 
the sacrament of His body and blood for our sakes, in order that 
what was once offered up for our ransom should be fittingly 
worshipped in a mystery. 

Secondly, because without faith in the Passion there 
could never be any salvation, according to Rom. iii. 25: 
Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in 
His blood. It was necessary accordingly that there should be 
at all times among men something to show forth Our Lord's 
Passion; the chief sacrament of which in the Old Law was 
the Paschal Lamb. Hence the Apostle says (i Cor. v. 7): 
Christ our Pasch is sacrificed. But its successor under the 
New Testament is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is 
a remembrance of the Passion now past, just as the other 
was figurative of the Passion to come. And so it was fitting 
that when the hour of the Passion was come, Christ should 
institute a new Sacrament after celebrating the old, as 
Pope Leo (I.) says (Serm. Iviii.). 

Thirdly, because last words, chiefly such as are spoken by 
departing friends, are committed most deeply to memory; 
in. 3 16 



242 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 73. Art. 5 

since then especially affection for friends is more enkindled, 
and the things which affect us most are impressed the 
deepest in the soul. Consequently, since, as Pope Alex- 
ander (I.) says, among sacrifices there can be none greater than 
the body and blood of Christ, nor any more powerful oblation; 
Our Lord instituted this sacrament at His last parting with 
His disciples, in order that it might be held in the greater 
veneration. And this is what Augustine says {Respons. ad 
Januar. i.) : In order to commend more earnestly the depth of 
this mystery, Our Saviour willed this last act to be fixed in the 
hearts and memories of the disciples whom He was about to 
qiiit for the Passion. 

Reply Obj. i. We are nourished from the same things of 
which we are made, but they do not come to us in the same 
way; for those out of which we are made come to us 
through generation, while the same, as nourishing us, come 
to us through being eaten. Hence, as we are new-born in 
Christ through Baptism, so through the Eucharist we eat 
Christ. 

Reply Obj. 2. The Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of 
Our Lord's Passion, as containing Christ crucified ; con- 
sequently it could not be instituted before the Incarnation ; 
but then there was room for only such sacraments as were 
prefigurative of the Lord's Passion. 

Reply Obj. 3. This sacrament was instituted during the 
supper, so as in the future to be a memorial of Our Lord's 
Passion as accomplished. Hence He said expressively: As 
often as ye shall do these things,"^ speaking of the future. 

Reply Obj. 4. The institution responds to the order of 
intention. But the sacrament of the Eucharist, although 
after Baptism in the receiving, is yet previous to it in 
intention; and therefore it behoved to be instituted first. 
Or else it can be said that Baptism was already instituted in 
Christ's Baptism; hence some were already baptized with 
Christ's Baptism, as we read in John iii. 22. 

* Canon of the Mass. 



OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST 243 



Sixth Article. 

whether the paschal lamb was the chief figure 
of this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the 
chief figure of this sacrament, because (Ps. cix. 4) Christ is 
called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech, since 
Melchisedech bore the figure of Christ's sacrifice, in offering 
bread and wine. But the expression of likeness causes one 
thing to be named from another. Therefore, it seems that 
Melchisedech' s offering was the principal figure of this 
sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure 
of Baptism, according to i Cor. x. 2: All . . . were baptized 
in the cloud and in the sea. But the immolation of the 
Paschal Lamb was previous to the passage of the Red Sea, 
and the Manna came after it, just as the Eucharist follows 
Baptism. Therefore the Manna is a more expressive 
figure of this sacrament than the Paschal Lamb. 

Obj. 3. Further, the principal power of this sacrament is 
that it brings us into the kingdom of heaven, being a 
kind of viaticum. But this was chiefly prefigured in the 
sacrament of expiation when the high-priest entered once a 
year into the Holy of Holies with blood, as the Apostle proves 
in Heb. ix. Consequently, it seems that that sacrifice was 
a more significant figure of this sacrament than was the 
Paschal Lamb. 

On the contrary, The Apostle says (i Cor. v. 7, 8) : Christ 
our Pasch is sacrificed ; therefore let us feast . . . with the 
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 

I answer that, We can consider three things in this sacra- 
ment : namely, that which is sacrament only, and this is the 
bread and wine ; that which is both reality and sacra- 
ment, to wit, Christ's true body; and lastly that which is 
reality only, namely, the effect of this sacrament. Conse- 
quently, in relation to what is sacrament only, the chief, 



244 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 73. Art. 6 

figure of this sacrament was the oblation of Melchisedech, 
who offered up bread and wine. — In relation to Christ 
crucified, Who is contained in this sacrament, its figures 
were all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, especially the 
sacrifice of expiation, which was the most solemn of all. 
While with regard to its effect, the chief figure was the 
Manna, having in it the sweetness of every taste (Wisd. xvi. 20), 
just as the grace of this sacrament refreshes the soul in all 
respects. 

The Paschal Lamb foreshadowed this sacrament in these 
three ways. First of all, because it was eaten with un- 
' leavened loaves, according to Exod. xii. 8: They shall eat 
flesh . . . and unleavened bread. As to the second, because it 
was immolated by the entire multitude of the children of 
Israel on the fourteenth day of the moon; and this was a 
figure of the Passion of Christ, Who is called the Lamb on 
account of His innocence. As to the effect, because by the 
blood of the Paschal Lamb the children of Israel were pre- 
served from the destroying Angel, and brought from the 
Egyptian captivity ; and in this respect the Paschal Lamb is 
the chief figure of this sacrament, because it represents it 
in every respect. 

From this the answer to the objections is manifest. 



QUESTION LXXIV. 

OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT. i 

{In Eight Articles.) 

We have now to consider the matter of this sacrament : and 
first of all as to its species; secondly, the change of the 
bread and wine into the body of Christ ; thirdly, the 
manner in which Christ's body exists in this sacrament; 
fourthly, the accidents of bread and wine which continue 
in this sacrament. 

Under the first heading there are eight points for inquiry : 
(i) Whether bread and wine are the matter of this sacra- 
ment ? (2) Whether a determinate quantity of the same 
is required for the matter of this sacrament ? (3) Whether 
the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread ? (4) Whether 
it is unleavened or fermented bread ? (5) Whether the 
matter of this sacrament is wine from the grape ? 
(6) Whether water should be mixed with it ? (7) Whether 
water is of necessity for this sacrament ? (8) Of the 
quantity of the water added. 

First Article, 
whether the matter of this sacrament is bread 

AND WINE ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that the matter of this sacrament 
is not bread and wine. Because this sacrament ought to 
represent Christ's Passion more fully than did the sacra- 
ments of the Old Law. But the flesh of animals, which was 
the matter of the sacraments under the Old Law, shows forth 
Christ's Passion more fully than bread and wine. Therefore 

245 



246 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '* Q. 74. Art. i 

the matter of this sacrament ought rather to be the flesh 
of animals than bread and wine. 

Obj. 2. Further, this sacrament is to be celebrated in 
every place. But in many lands bread is not to be found, 
and in many places wine is not to be found. Therefore 
bread and wine are not a suitable matter for this sacrament. 

Obj. 3. Further, this sacrament is for both hale and weak. 
But to some weak persons wine is hurtful. Therefore it 
seems that wine ought not to be the matter of this sacrament. 

On the contrary, Pope Alexander (I.) says (Ef. ad omnes 
Orthod. i.): In oblations of the sacraments only bread and 
wine mixed with water are to be offered. 

I answer that, Some have fallen into various errors about 
the matter of this sacrament. Some, known as the Arto- 
tyrytae, as Augustine says {De Hceres. xxviii.), offer bread 
and cheese in this sacrament, contending that oblations were 
celebrated by men in the first ages, from fruits of the earth 
and sheep. Others, called Cataphrygae and Pepuziani, are 
reputed to have made their Eucharistic bread with infants^ blood 
drawn from tiny punctures over the entire body, and mixed 
with flour. Others, styled Aquarii, under guise of sobriety, 
offer nothing but water in this sacrament. 

Now all these and similar errors are excluded by the fact 
that Christ instituted this sacrament under the species of 
bread and wine, as is evident from Matth. xxvi. Conse- 
quently, bread and wine are the proper matter of this 
sacrament. And the reasonableness of this is seen, first, 
in the use of this sacrament, which is eating : for, as water 
is used in the sacrament of Baptism for the purpose of 
spiritual cleansing, since bodily cleansing is commonly 
done with water; so bread and wine, wherewith men are 
commonly fed, are employed in this sacrament for the use 
of spiritual eating. 

Secondly, in relation to Christ's Passion, in which the 
blood was separated from the body. And therefore in this 
sacrament, which is the memorial of Our Lord's Passion, 
the bread is received apart as the sacrament of the body, 
and the wine as the sacrament of the blood. 



OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 247 

Thirdly, as to the effect, considered in each of the par- 
takers. For, as Ambrose {Mag. Sent, iv., D. xi.) says on 
I Cor. xi. 20, this sacrament avails for the defence of soul 
and body ; and therefore Chris fs body is offered under the 
species of bread /or the health of the body, and the blood under 
the species of wine for the health of the soul, according to 
Lev. xvii. 14: The life of the animal (Vulg., — of all flesh) 
is in the blood. 

Fourthly, as to the effect with regard to the whole Church, 
which is made up of many believers, just as bread is composed 
of many grains, and wine flows from many grapes, as the gloss 
observes on i Cor. x. 17: We being many are . . . one 
body, etc. 

Reply Obj. i. Although the flesh of slaughtered animals 
represents the Passion more forcibly, nevertheless it is 
less suitable for the common use of this sacrament, and 
for denoting the unity of the Church. 

Reply Obj. 2. Although wheat and wine are not produced 
in every country, yet they can easily be conveyed to every 
land, that is, as much as is needful for the use of this sacra- 
ment: at the same time one is not to be consecrated when 
the other is lacking, because it would not be a complete 
sacrament. 

Reply Obj. 3. Wine taken in small quantity cannot do the 
sick much harm: yet if there be fear of harm, it is not 
necessary for all who take Christ's body to partake also 
of His blood, as will be stated later (Q. LXXX., A. 12). 

Second Article. 

whether a determinate quantity of bread and wine 
is required for the matter of this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — • 

Objection i. It seems that a determinate quantity of bread 
and wine is required for the matter of this sacrament. 
Because the effects of grace are no less set in order than 
those of nature. But, there is a limit set by nature upon all 
existing things, and a reckoning of size and development (De 



248 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '^ Q. 74. Art. 1 

Anima ii.). Consequently, in this sacrament, which is 
called Eucharist y that is, a good grace, a determinate quantity 
of the bread and wine is required. 

Ohj. 2. Further, Christ gave no power to the ministers 
of the Church regarding matters which involve derision of 
the faith and of His sacraments, according to 2 Cor. x. 8: 
Of our power which the Lord hath given us unto edification, and 
not for your destruction. But it would lead to mockery of 
this sacrament if the priest were to wish to consecrate all the 
bread which is sold in the market and all the wine in the 
cellar. Therefore he cannot do this. 

Ohj. 3. Further, if anyone be baptized in the sea, the 
entire sea-water is not sanctified by the form of baptism, 
but only the water wherewith the body of the baptized is 
cleansed. Therefore, neither in this sacrament can a 
superfluous quantity of bread be consecrated. 

On the contrary, Much is opposed to little, and great to small. 
But there is no quantity, however small, of the bread and wine 
which cannot be consecrated. Therefore, neither is there 
any quantity, however great, which cannot be consecrated. 

/ answer that. Some have maintained that the priest could 
not consecrate an immense quantity of bread and wine, for 
instance, all the bread in the market or all the wine in a 
cask. But this does not appear to be true, because in all 
things containing matter, the reason for the determination of 
the matter is drawn from its disposition to an end, just as 
the matter of a saw is iron, so as to adapt it for cutting. 
But the end of this sacrament is the use of the faithful. 
Consequently, the quantity of the matter of this sacrament 
must be determined by comparison with the use of the 
faithful. But this cannot be determined by comparison 
with the use of the faithful who are actually present ; other- 
wise the parish priest having few parishioners could not 
consecrate many hosts. It remains, then, for the matter of 
this sacrament to be determined in reference to the number 
of the faithful absolutely. But the number of the faithful 
is not a determinate one. Hence it cannot be said that the 
quantity of the matter of this sacrament is restricted. 



OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 249 

Reply Ohj. i. The matter of every natural object has its 
determinate quantity by comparison with its determinate 
form. But the number of he faithful, for whose use this 
sacrament is ordained, is not a determinate one. Conse- 
quently there is no comparison. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The power of the Church's ministers is 
ordained for two purposes: first for the proper effect, and 
secondly for the end of the effect. But the second does not 
take away the first. Hence, if the priest intends to conse- 
crate the body of Christ for an evil purpose, for instance, to 
make mockery of it, or to administer poison through it, he 
commits sin by his evil intention, nevertheless, on account 
of the power committed to him, he accomplishes the 
sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The sacrament of Baptism is perfected in 
the use of the matter : and therefore no more of the water is 
hallowed than what is used. But this sacrament is wrought 
in the consecration of the matter. Consequently there is 
no parallel. 

Third Article. 

whether wheaten bread is required for the \ 
matter of this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Ohjection i. It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite 
for the matter of this sacrament, because this sacrament is a 
reminder of Our Lord's Passion. But barley bread seems to 
be more in keeping with the Passion than wheaten bread, as 
being more bitter, and because Christ used it to feed the 
multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in John vi. 
Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this 
sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of 
species. But some cereals resemble wheat, such as spelt and 
maize, from which in some localities bread is made for the 
use of this sacrament. Therefore wheaten bread is not the 
proper matter of this sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten 



250 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " q. 74. Art. 3 

flour is hardly to be found unmixed with some other species 
of grain, except in the instance of specially selected grain. 
Therefore it does not seem that wheaten bread is the proper 
matter for this sacrament. 

Obj. 4. Further, what is corrupted appears to be of 
another species. But some make the sacrament from bread 
which is corrupted, and which no longer seems to be wheaten 
bread. Therefore, it seems that such bread is not the 
proper matter of this sacrament. 

On the contrary, Christ is contained in this sacrament, and 
He compares Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (John 
xii. 24): Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, 
itself remaineth alone. Therefore bread from com, i.e. 
wheaten bread, is the matter of this sacrament. 

/ answer that. As stated above (A. i), for the use of the 
sacraments such matter is adopted as is commonly made 
use of among men. Now among other breads wheaten 
bread is more commonly used by men; since other breads 
seem to be employed when this fails. And consequently 
Christ is believed to have instituted this sacrament under 
/this species of bread. Moreover this bread strengthens 
man, and so it denotes more suitably the effect of this 
sacrament. Consequently, the proper matter for this 
sacrament is wheaten bread. 

! Reply Obj. i. Barley bread serves to denote the hardness 
of the Old Law; both on account of the hardness of 
the bread, and because, as Augustine says (Qq. 83): The 
flour within the barley, wrapped up as it is within a most 
tenacious fibre, denotes either the Law itself, which was given 
in such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments ; or else 
it denotes the people themselves, who were not yet despoiled of 
carnal desires, which clung to their hearts like fibre. But this 
sacrament belongs to Christ's sweet yoke, and to the truth 
already manifested, and to a spiritual people. Conse- 
quently barley bread would not be a suitable matter for 
this sacrament. 

Reply Obj. 2. A begetter begets a thing like to itself in 
species; yet there is some unlikeness as to the accidents. 



OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 251 

owing either to the matter, or to weakness within the 
generative power. And therefore, if there be any cereals 
which can be grown from the seed of the wheat (as wild 
wheat from wheat seed sown in bad ground), the bread made 
from such grain can be the matter of this sacrament: and 
this does not obtain either in barley, or in spelt, or even 
in maize, which is of all grains the one most resembling the 
wheat grain. But the resemblance as to shape in such 
seems to denote closeness of species rather than identity; 
just as the resemblance in shape between the dog and 
the wolf goes to show that they are allied but not of the 
same species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in 
any way be generated from wheat grain, bread cannot be 
made such as to be the proper matter of this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 3. A moderate mixing does not alter the 
species, because that little is as it were absorbed by the 
greater. Consequently, then, if a small quantity of another 
grain be mixed with a much greater quantity of wheat, bread 
may be made therefrom so as to be the proper matter of this 
sacrament; but if the mixing be notable, for instance, half 
and half, or nearly so, then such mixing alters the species; 
consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the 
proper matter of this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 4. Sometimes there is such corruption of the 
bread that the species of bread is lost, as when the con- 
tinuity of its parts is destroyed, and the taste, colour, and 
other accidents are changed ; hence the body of Christ may 
not be made from such matter. But sometimes there is not 
such corruption as to alter the species, but merely disposition 
towards corruption, which a slight change in the savour 
betrays, and from such bread the body of Christ may be 
made : but he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the 
sacrament. And because starch comes of corrupted wheat, 
it does not seem as if the body of Christ could be made of 
the bread made therefrom, although some hold the contrary. 



252 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " q. 74. Art. 4 

Fourth Article . 

c whether this sacrament ought to be made of 

unleavened bread ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that this sacrament ought not to be 
made of unleavened bread, because in this sacrament we 
ought to imitate Christ's institution. But Christ appears to 
have instituted this sacrament in fermented bread, because, 
as we read in Exod. xii., the Jews, according to the Law, 
began to use unleavened bread on the day of the Passover, 
which is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon ; and 
Christ instituted this sacrament at the supper which He 
celebrated before the festival day of thePasch (John xiii, i, 4). 
Therefore we ought likewise to celebrate this sacrament with 
fermented bread. 

Obj. 2. Further, legal observances ought not to be con- 
tinued in the time of grace. But the use of unleavened 
bread was a ceremony of the Law, as is clear from Exod. xii. 
Therefore we ought not to use unfermented bread in this 
sacrament of grace. 

Obj. 3. Further, as stated above (Q. LXV., A. i; Q. 
LXXIIL, A. 3), the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity 
just as Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But the fervour 
of charity is signified by fermented bread, as is declared 
by the gloss on Matth. xiii. 33 : The kingdom of heaven is like 
unto leaven, etc. Therefore this sacrament ought to be 
made of leavened bread. 

Obj. 4. Further, leavened or unleavened are mere acci- 
dents of bread, which do not vary the species. But in 
the matter for the sacrament of Baptism no difference 
is observed regarding the variation of the accidents, as to 
whether it be salt or fresh, warm or cold water. Therefore 
neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to whether 
the bread be unleavened or leavened. 

On the contrary, According to the Decretals (Extra, De 
Celebr.Miss.), a priest is punished /of presuming to celebrate, 
using fermented bread and a wooden cup. 



OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 253 

I answer that, Two things may be considered touching the 
matter of this sacrament, namely, what is necessary, and 
what is suitable. It is necessary that the bread be wheat en, 
without which the sacrament is not vaUd, as stated above 
(A. 3). It is not, however, necessary for the sacrament that 
the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be cele- 
brated in either. 

But it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his 
Church in the celebration of the sacrament. Now in this 
matter there are various customs of the Churches: for, 
Gregory says: The Roman Church offers, unleavened bread, 
because Our Lord took flesh without union of sexes : but the 
Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the 
Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the 
flour. Hence, as a priest sins by celebrating with fermented 
bread in the Latin Church, so a Greek priest celebrating 
with unfermented bread in a church of the Greeks would 
also sin, as perverting the rite of his Church. 

Nevertheless the custom of celebrating with unleavened 
bread is more reasonable. First, on account of Christ's 
institution : for He instituted this sacrament on the first day 
of the Azymes (Matth. xxvi. 17, Mark xiv. 12, Luke xxii. 7), 
on which day there ought to be nothing fermented in 
the houses of the Jews, as is stated in Exod. xii. 15, 19. 
Secondly, because bread is properly the sacrament of Christ's 
body, which was conceived without corruption, rather than 
of His Godhead, as will be seen later (Q. LXXVL, A. Tadi.). 
Thirdly, because this is more in keeping with the sincerity 
of the faithful, which is required in the use of this sacrament, 
according to i Cor. v. 7 : Christ our Pasch is sacrificed : 
therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity 
and truth. 

However, this custom of the Greeks is not unreasonable, 
both on account of its signification, to which Gregory 
refers, and in detestation of the heresy of the Nazarenes, 
who mixed up legal observances with the Gospel. 

Reply Obj. i. As we read in Exod. xii., the paschal 
solemnity began on the evening of the fourteenth day of the 



254 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 74. Art. 4 

moon. So, then, after immolating the Paschal Lamb, Christ 
instituted this sacrament: hence this day is said by John 
to precede the day of the Pasch, while the other three 
Evangelists call it the first day of the Azymes, when fermented 
bread was not found in the houses of the Jews, as stated 
above. Fuller mention was made of this in the treatise on 
Our Lord's Passion (Q. XLVL, A. () adi). 

Reply Ohj. 2. Those who celebrate the sacrament with 
unleavened bread do not intend to follow the ceremonial of 
the Law, but to conform to Christ's institution ; so they are 
not Judaizing; otherwise those celebrating in fermented 
bread would be Judaizing, because the Jews offered up 
fermented bread for the firstfruits. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Leaven denotes charity on account of one 
single effect, because it makes the bread more savoury and 
larger; but it also signifies corruption from its very nature. 

Reply Ohj. /* . Since whatever is fermented partakes of 
corruption, this sacrament may not be made from corrupt 
bread, as stated above (A. 3 ad 4.); consequently, there is a 
wider difference between unleavened and leavened bread 
than between warm and cold baptismal water : because there 
might be such corruption of fermented bread that it could 
not be validly used for the sacrament. 

Fifth Article. 

whether wine of the grape is the proper matter 
of this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Ohjection i. It seems that wine of the grape is not the 
proper matter of this sacrament. Because, as water is the 
matter of Baptism, so is wine the matter of this sacrament. 
But Baptism can be conferred with any kind of water. 
Therefore this sacrament can be celebrated in any kind of 
wine, such as of pomegranates, or of mulberries ; since vines 
do not grow in some countries. 

Ohj. 2. Further, vinegar is a kind of wine drawn from the 
grape, as Isidore says (Etym. xx.). But this sacrament 



OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 255 

cannot be celebrated with vinegar. Therefore, it seems 
that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this 
sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, just as the clarified wine is drawn from 
grapes, so also are the juice of unripe grapes and must. 
But it does not appear that this sacrament may be made 
from such, according to what we read in the Sixth Council 
(Trull., Cdji. 28): We have learnt that in some churches the 
priests add grapes to the sacrifice of the oblation ; and so they 
dispense both together to the people. Consequently we give order 
that no priest shall do this in future. And Pope Julius I. 
rebukes some priests who offer wine pressed from the grape 
in the sacrament of the Lord's chalice. Consequently, it seems 
that wine from the grape is not the proper matter of this 
sacrament. 

On the contrary, As Our Lord compared Himself to the 
grain of wheat, so also He compared Himself to the vine, ^ 
saying (John xv. i): / am the true vine. But only bread ; 
from wheat is the matter of this sacrament, as stated above 
(A. 3). Therefore, only wine from the grape is the proper 
matter of this sacrament. 

/ answer that, This sacrament can only be performed with 
wine from the grape. First of all on account of Christ's insti 
tution, since He instituted this sacrament in wine from the 
grape, as is evident from His own words, in instituting this 
sacrament (Matth. xxvi. 29) : / will not drink from henceforth 
of this fruit of the vine. Secondly, because, as stated above 
(A. 3), that is adopted as the matter of the sacraments which 
is properly and universally considered as such. Now that 
is properly called wine, which is drawn from the grape, 
whereas other liquors are called wine from resemblance to 
the wine of the grape. Thirdly, because the wine from the 
grape is more in keeping with the effect of this sacrament, 
which is spiritual; because it is written (Ps. ciii. 15): That 
wine may cheer the heart of man. 

Reply Obj. i. Such liquors are called wine, not properly 
but only from their resemblance thereto. But genuine 
wine can be conveyed to such countries wherein the 



256 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 74. Art. 5 

grape-vine does not flourish, in a quantity sufficient for this 
sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Wine becomes vinegar by corruption; hence 
there is no returning from vinegar to wine, as is said in 
Metaph. viii. And consequently, just as this sacrament may 
not be made from bread which is utterly corrupt, so neither 
can it be made from vinegar. It can, however, be made 
from wine which is turning sour, just as from bread turning 
corrupt, although he who does so sins, as stated above (A. 3). 

Reply Ohj. 3. The juice of unripe grapes is at the stage 
of incomplete generation, and therefore it has not yet the 
species of wine: on which account it may not be used for 
this sacrament. Must, however, has already the species of 
wine, for its sweetness* indicates fermentation which is 
the result of its natural heat {Meteor, iv.); consequently 
this sacrament can be made from must. Nevertheless 
entire grapes ought not to be mixed with this sacrament, 
because then there would be something else besides wine. 
It is furthermore forbidden to offer must in the chalice, 
as soon as it has been squeezed from the grape, since this is 
unbecoming owing to the impurity of the must. But in 
case of necessity it may be done : for it is said by the same 
Pope Julius, in the passage quoted in the argument: If 
necessary, let the grape he pressed into the chalice. 

Sixth Article, 
whether water should be mixed with the wine ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that water ought not to be mixed 
with the wine, since Christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed by 
that of Melchisedech, who (Gen. xiv. 18) is related to have 
offered up bread and wine only. Consequently, it seems 
that water should not be added in this sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the various sacraments have their 
respective matters. But water is the matter of Baptism. 

* Aut dulcis musti Vulcano decoquit humorem (Virg., — Georg. i. 
295)- 



OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 257 

Therefore it should not be employed as the matter of this 
sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, bread and wine are the matter of this 
sacrament. But nothing is added to the bread. Therefore 
neither should anything be added to the wine. 

On the contrary, Pope Alexander (L) writes [Ep. I. ad 
omnes Orthod.) : In the sacramental oblations which in mass 
are offered to the Lord, only bread and wine mixed with water 
are to be offered in sacrifice. 

I answer that, Water ought to be mingled with the wine 
which is offered in this sacrament. First of all on account of 
its institution: for it is believed with probability that Our 
Lord instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water 
according to the custom of that country : hence it is written 
(Prov. ix. 5) : Drink the wine which I have mixed for you. 
Secondly, because it harmonizes with the representation of 
Our Lord's Passion: hence Pope Alexander (L) says [loc. 
cit.) : In the Lord^s chalice neither wine only nor water only 
ought to be offered, but both mixed, because we read that both 
flowed from His side in the Passion. Thirdly, because this is 
adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament, since as 
Pope Julius says [Concil. Bracarens iii.,Can. i): We see that 
the people are signified by the water, but Chrisfs blood by the 
wine. Therefore when water is mixed with the wine in the 
chalice, the people is made one with Christ. Fourthly, because 
this is appropriate to the fourth effect of this sacrament, 
which is the entering into everlasting life: hence Ambrose 
says {De Sacram. v.): The water flows into the chalice, and 
springs forth unto everlasting life. 

Reply Obj. i. As Ambrose says (ibid.), just as Christ's 
sacrifice is denoted by the offering of Melchisedech, so like- 
wise it is signified by the water which flowed from the rock 
in the desert, according to i Cor. x. 4: But they drank of the 
spiritual rock which came after them. 

Reply Obj. 2. In Baptism water is used for the purpose 
of ablution : but in this sacrament it is used by way of / 
refreshment, according to Ps. xxii. 3 : He hath brought me up \ 
on the water of refreshment. 

in. 3 17 



258 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 74. Art. 6 

Reply Ohj. 3. Bread is made of water and flour ; and 
therefore, since water is mixed with the wine, neither is 
without water. 

Seventh Article. 

WHETHER the MIXING WITH WATER IS ESSENTIAL 
TO THIS SACRAMENT ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the mixing with water is 
essential to this sacrament. Because Cyprian says to CeciHus 
{Ep. Ixiii.) : Thus the Lord^s chalice is not water only and wine 
only, hut both must he mixed together : in the same way as neither 
the Lord^s hody he of flour only, except both, i.e., the flour 
and the water he united as one. But the admixture of water 
with the flour is necessary for this sacrament. Conse- 
quently, for the like reason, so is the mixing of water with 
the wine. 

Ohj. 2. Further, at Our Lord's Passion, of which this is the 
memorial, water as well as blood flowed from His side. But 
wine, which is the sacrament of the blood, is necessary for 
this sacrament. For the same reason, therefore, so is water. 

Ohj. 3. Further, if water were not essential to this sacra- 
ment, it would not matter in the least what kind of water 
was used ; and so water distilled from roses, or any other 
kind, might be employed; which is contrary to the usage 
of the Church. Consequently water is essential to this 
sacrament. 

On the contrary, Cyprian says (loc. cit.): If any of our 
predecessors, out of ignorance or simplicity, has not kept this 
usage, i.e., of mixing water with the wine, one may pardon 
his simplicity; which would not be the case if water were 
essential to the sacrament, as the wine or the bread. There- 
fore the mingling of water with the wine is not essential to 
the sacrament. 

/ answer that, Judgment concerning a sign is to be drawn 
from the thing signified. Now the adding of water to the 
wine is for the purpose of signifying the sharing of this sacra- 
ment by the faithful, in this respect that by the mixing of 



OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 259 

the water with the wine, is signified the union of the people 
with Christ, as stated (A. 6). Moreover, the flowing of water 
from the side of Christ hanging on the cross refers to the 
same, because by the water is denoted the cleansing from 
sins, which was the effect of Christ's Passion. Now it was 
observed above (Q. LXXIIL, A. i ^^ 3), that this sacrament 
is completed in the consecration of the matter: while the 
usage of the faithful is not essential to the sacrament, but 
only a consequence thereof. Consequently, then, the 
adding of water is not essential to the sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. i. Cyprian's expression is to be taken in the 
same sense in which we say that a thing cannot be, which 
cannot be suitably. And so the comparison refers to what 
ought to be done, not to what is essential to be done ; since 
water is of the essence of bread, but not of the essence of 
wine. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The shedding of the blood belonged directly 
to Christ's Passion : for it is natural for blood to flow from 
a wounded human body. But the flowing of the water 
was not necessary for the Passion ; but merely to show its 
effect, which is to wash away sins, and to refresh us from 
the heat of concupiscence. And therefore the water is not 
offered apart from the wine in this sacrament, as the wine 
is offered apart from the bread; but the water is offered 
mixed with the wine to show that the wine belongs of itself 
to this sacrament, as of its very essence; but the water as 
something added to the wine. 

Reply Ohj . 3. Since the mixing of water with the wine is 
not necessary for the sacrament, it does not matter, as to the 
essence of the sacrament, what kind of water is added to the 
wine, whether natural water, or artificial, as rose-water, 
although, as to the propriety of the sacrament, he would sin 
who mixes any other than natural and true water, because 
true water flowed from the side of Christ hanging on the 
cross, and not phlegm, as some have said, in order to show 
that Christ's body was truly composed of the four elements ; 
as by the flowing blood, it was shown to be composed of the 
four humours, as Pope Innocent III. says in a certain Decree. 



26o THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 74. Art. 7 

But because the mixing of water with flour is essential to 
this sacrament, as making the composition of bread, if rose- 
water, or any other hquor besides true water, be mixed 
with the flour, the sacrament would not be valid, because it 
would not be true bread. 



Eighth Article. 

[ whether water should be added in great 

quantity ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that water ought to be added in 
great quantity, because as blood flowed sensibly from 
Christ's side, so did water: hence it is written (John xix. 35) : 
He that saw it, hath given testimony. But water could not 
be sensibly present in this sacrament except it were used in 
great quantity. Consequently it seems that water ought 
to be added in great quantity. 

Ohj. 2. Further, a little water mixed with much wine is 
corrupted. But what is corrupted no longer exists. There- 
fore, it is the same thing to add a little water in this sacra- 
ment as to add none. But it is not lawful to add none. 
Therefore, neither is it lawful to add a little. 

Ohj, 3. Further, if it sufliced to add a little, then as a 
consequence it would sufflce to throw one drop of water into 
an entire cask. But this seems ridiculous. Therefore it does 
not suffice for a small quantity to be added. 

On the contrary, It is said in the Decretals (Extra, De 
Celeb. Miss.) : The pernicious abuse has prevailed in your 
country of adding water in greater quantity than the wine, in 
the sacrifice, where according to the reasonable custom of the 
entire Church more wine than water ought to he employed. 

I answer that. There is a threefold opinion regarding the 
water added to the wine, as Pope Innocent JIT says in a 
certain Decretal. For some say that the water remains by 
itself when the wine is changed into blood: but such an 
opinion cannot stand, because in the sacrament of the altar 
after the consecration there is nothing else save the body and 



OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 261 

the blood of Christ. Because, as Ambrose says inDe Officii s 
(De Mysteriis, ix.): Before the blessing it is another species 
that is named, after the Messing the Body is signified ; other- 
wise it would not be adored with adoration of latria. And 
therefore others have said that as the wine is changed into 
blood, so the water is changed into the water which flowed 
from Christ's side. But this cannot be maintained reason- 
ably, because according to this the water would be conse- 
crated apart from the wine, as the wine is from the bread. 

And therefore as he (Innocent III., loc, cit.) says, the more 
probable opinion is that which holds that the water is' 
changed into wine, and the wine into blood. Now, this 
could not be done unless so little water was used that \i 
would be changed into wine. Consequently, it is always 
safer to add little water, especially if the wine be weak, 
because the sacrament could not be celebrated if there 
were such addition of water as to destroy the species of the 
wine. Hence Pope Julius (I.) reprehends some who keep 
throughout the year a linen cloth steeped in must, and at the 
time of sacrifice wash a part of it with water, and so make the 
offering. 

Reply Ohj. i. For the signification of this sacrament it 
suffices for the water to be appreciable by sense when it is 
mixed with the wine : but it is not necessary for it to be 
sensible after the mingling. 

Reply Ohj. 2. If no water were added, the signification 
would be utterly excluded: but when the water is changed 1 
into wine, it is signified that the people is incorporated with 
Christ. 

Reply Ohj. 3. If water were added to a cask, it would not 
suffice for the signification of this sacrament, but the water 
must be added to the wine at the actual celebration of the 
sacrament. 



QUESTION LXXV. 

OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY 
AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. 

{In Eight Articles.) 

We have now to consider the change of the bread and wine 
into the body and blood of Christ ; under which head there 
are eight points of inquiry: (i) Whether the substance of 
bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the conse- 
cration ?* (2) Whether it is annihilated ? (3) Whether it 
is changed into the body and blood of Christ ? (4) Whether 
the accidents remain after the change ? (5) Whether the 
substantial form remains there ? (6) Whether this change 
is instantaneous ? (7) Whether it is more miraculous than 
any other change ? (8) By what words it may be suitably 
expressed ? 

First Article. 

whether the body of christ be in this sacrament 
in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the body of Christ is not in this 
sacrament in very truth, but only as in a figure, or sign. For 
it is written (John vi. 54) that when Our Lord had uttered 
these words : Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and 

* The titles of the Articles here given were taken by S. Thomas 
from his Commentary on the Sentences (iv. Dist. xc). However, in 
writing the Articles he introduced a new point of inquiry, that of 
the First Article; and substituted another division of the matter 
under discussion, as may be seen by referring to the titles of the 
various Articles. Most editions have ignored S. Thomas's original 
division, and give the one to which he subsequently adhered. 

262 



OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE 263 

drink His blood, etc., Many of His disciples on hearing it 
said : ' this is a hard saying ' ; to whom He rejoined: ' It 
is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing ' ; as 
if He were to say, according to Augustine's exposition on 
Ps. iv.*: Give a spiritual meaning to what I have said. You 
are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood 
which they who crucify Me are to spill. It is a mystery that I 
put before you : in its spiritual sense it will quicken you ; but 
the flesh profiteth nothing. 

Obj. 2. Further, Our Lord said (Matth. xxviii. 20): 
Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of 
the world. Now in explaining this, Augustine makes this 
observation {Tract, xxx. in foan.) : The Lord is on high until 
the world be ended ; nevertheless the truth of the Lord is here 
with us ; for the body, in which He rose again, must be in one 
place ; but His truth is spread abroad everywhere. Therefore, 
the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, 
but only as in a sign. 

Obj. 3. Further, no body can be in several places at the'^ 
one time. For this does not even belong to an angel ; since 
for the same reason it could be everywhere. But Christ's, is 
a true body, and it is heaven. Consequently, it seems that 
it is not in very truth in the sacrament of the altar, but only 
as in a sign. 

Obj. 4. Further, the Church's sacraments are ordained for 
the profit of the faithful. But according to Gregory in a 
certain Homily (xxviii. in Evang.), the ruler is rebuked /or 
demanding Chrisfs bodily presence. Moreover the apostles 
were prevented from receiving the Holy Ghost because they 
were attached to His bodily presence, as Augustine says on 
John xvi. 7: Except I go, the Paraclete will not come to you 
(Tract, xciv. in foan.). Therefore Christ is not in the 
sacrament of the altar according to His bodily presence. 

On the contrary, Hilary says [De Trin. viii.): There is no 
room for doubt regarding the truth of Chrisfs body and blood / 
for now by Our Lord^s own declaring and by our faith His 
flesh is truly food, and His blood is truly drink. And xA.mbrose 

* On Ps. xcviii. q. 



264 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 75. Art. i 

says {De Sacram. vi.) : As the Lord Jesus Christ is God'^s true 
Son, so is it Chrisfs true flesh which we take, and His true blood 
which we drink. 

I answer that, The presence of Christ's true body and blood-^ 
in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor under- 
standing, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine 
authority. Hence, on Luke xxii. 19: This is My body, 
which shall be delivered up for you, Cyril says: Doubt not 
li^hether this be true ; but take rather the Saviours words with 
faith / for since He is the Truth, He lieth not. 

Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New 
Law. For, the sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in 
figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion, according to 
Heb. X. I : For the law having a shadow of the good things to 
come, not the very image of the things. And therefore it was 
necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted 
by Christ should have something more, namely, that it 
should contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in 
signification or figure, but also in very truth. And there- 
fore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as 
Dionysius says [Eccl. Hier. iii.), is perfective of all the other 
sacraments, in which Christ's virtue is participated. 

Secondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for 
our salvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And 
because it is the special feature of friendship to live together 
with friends, as the Philosopher says {Ethic, ix.). He promises 
us His bodily presence as a reward, saying (Matth. xxiv. 28) : 
Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together. 
Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us 
of His bodily presence ; but unites us with Himself in this 
sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence 
(John vi. 57) he says: He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh 
My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him. Hence this sacrament 
is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, 
from such familiar union of Christ with us. 

Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which con- 
cerns His humanity just as it does his Godhead, according 
to John xiv. i : You believe in God, believe also in Me. And 



OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE 265 

since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead 
invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in 
an invisible manner. 

Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, 
have contended that Christ's body and blood are not in this 
sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as 
heretical, since it is contrary to Christ's words. Hence 
Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of this heresy, 
was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to acknow- 
ledge the truth of the faith. 

Reply Ohj. i. From this authority the aforesaid heretics 
have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding 
Augustine's words. For when Augustine says : You are not 
to eat this body which you see, he means not to exclude the 
truth of Christ's body, but that it was not to be eaten in 
this species in which it was seen by them. And by the 
words : It is a mystery that I put before you ; in its spiritual 
sense it will quicken you, he intends not that the body of 
Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical 
signification, but spiritually, that is, invisibly, and by the 
power of the spirit. Hence (Tract, xxvii.), expounding 
John vi. 64 — the flesh profiteth nothing, he says: Yea, but as 
they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be 
eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in 
the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit. ... Let 
the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the flesh profiteth very 
much : for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been 
made flesh, that It might dwell among us. 

Reply Obj. 2. That saying of Augustine and all others like 
it are to be understood of Christ's body as it is beheld in its 
proper species; according as Our Lord Himself says (Matth. 
xxvi. 11) : But Me you have not always. Nevertheless He is 
invisibly under the species of this sacrament, wherever this 
sacrament is performed. 

Reply Obj. 3. Christ's body is not in this sacrament in the 
same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is 
commensurate with the place; but in a special manner 
which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ's 



266 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 75. Art. i 

body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but 
sacramentally : and thereby we do not understand that 
Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a 
kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a fashion 
proper to this sacrament, as stated above. 

Reply Ohj. 4. This argument holds good of Christ's bodily 
presence, as He is present after the manner of a body, that 
is, as it is in its visible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, 
that is, invisibly, after the manner and by the virtue of the 
spirit. Hence Augustine {Tract, xxvii. in Joan.) says: If 
thou hast understood Christ's words spiritually concerning 
His flesh, they are spirit and life to thee ; if thou hast under- 
stood them carnally, they are also spirit and life, hut not to thee. 

Second Article. 

whether in this sacrament the substance of the 
bread and wine remains after the consecration ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the substance of the bread and 
wine does remain in this sacrament after the consecration: 
because Damascene says {De Fide Orthod. iv.): Since it is 
customary for men to eat bread and drink wine, God has wedded 
his Godhead to them, and made them His body and blood : and 
further on : The bread of communication is not simple bread, 
but is united to the Godhead. But wedding together belongs 
to things actually existing. Therefore the bread and wine 
are at the same time, in this sacrament, with the body and 
the blood of Christ. 

Obj. 2. Further, there ought to be conformity between the 
sacraments. But in the other sacraments the substance of the 
matter remains, like the substance of water in Baptism, and 
the substance of chrism in Confirmation. Therefore the sub- 
stance of the bread and wine remains also in this sacrament. 

Obj. 3. Further, bread and wine are made use of in this 
sacrament, inasmuch as they denote ecclesiastical unity, as 
one bread is made from many grains and wine from many 
grapes, as Augustine says in his book on the Cxeedi {Tract, 



OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE 267 

xxvi. in Joan.). But this belongs to the substance of bread 
and wine. Therefore, the substance of the bread and wine 
remains in this sacrament. 

On the contrary y Ambrose says [De Sacram. iv.): Although 
the figure of the bread and wine he seen, still, after the Conse- 
cration, they are to he helieved to he nothing else than the hody 
and blood of Christ. 

I answer that, Some have held that the substance of the 
bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the conse- 
cration. But this opinion cannot stand: first of all, because 
by such an opinion the truth of this sacrament is destroyed, 
to which it belongs that Christ's true body exists in this 
sacrament; which indeed was not there before the conse- 
cration. Now a thing cannot be in any place, where it 
was not previously, except by change of place, or by the 
conversion of another thing into itself; just as fire begins 
anew to be in some house, either because it is carried thither, 
or because it is generated there. Now it is evident that 
Christ's body does not begin to be present in this sacrament 
by local motion. First of all, because it would follow that it 
would cease to be in heaven : for what is moved locally does 
not come anew to some place unless it quit the former one. 
Secondly, because every body moved locally passes through 
all intermediary spaces, which cannot be said here. Thirdly, 
because it is not possible for one movement of the same body 
moved locally to be terminated in different places at the 
one time, whereas the body of Christ under this sacrament 
begins at the one time to be in several places. And 
consequently it remains that Christ's body cannot begin 
to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the sub- 
stance of bread into itself. But what is changed into another 
thing, no longer remains after such change. Hence the 
conclusion is that, saving the truth of this sacrament, the 
substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration. 

Secondly, because this position is contrary to the form 
of this sacrament, in which it is said: This is My body, which 
would not be true if the substance of the bread were to 
remain there; for the substance of bread never is the body 



268 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA *' Q. 75. Art. 2 

of Christ. Rather should one say in that case: Here is My 
body. 

Thirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration of 
this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not 
be adored with adoration of latria. 

Fourthly, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, 
according to which it is not lawful to take the body of 
Christ after bodily food, while it is nevertheless lawful 
to take one consecrated host after another. Hence this 
opinion is to be avoided as heretical. 

Reply Ohj. i. God wedded His Godhead, i.e., His Divine 
power, to the bread and wine, not that these may remain in 
this sacrament, but in order that He may make from them 
His body and blood. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Christ is not really present in the other 
sacraments, as in this; and therefore the substance of the 
matter remains in the other sacraments, but not in this. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The species which remain in this sacrament, 
as shall be said later (A. 5), suffice for its signification; 
because the nature of the substance is known by its 
accidents. 

Third Article. 

whether the substance of the bread or wine is 
annihilated after the consecration of this 
sacrament, or dissolved into their original 

MATTER ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Ohjection i. It seems that the substance of the bread is 
annihilated after the consecration of this sacrament, or 
dissolved into its original matter. For whatever is cor- 
poreal must be somewhere. But the substance of bread, 
which is something corporeal, does not remain, in this 
sacrament, as stated above (A. 2); nor can we assign any 
place where it may be. Consequently it is nothing after the 
consecration. Therefore, it is either annihilated, or dis- 
solved into its original matter. 

Ohj. 2. Further, what is the term wherefrom in every 



OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE 269 

change exists no longer, except in the potentiahty of matter ; 
e.g., when air is changed into lire, the form of the air remains 
only in the potentiality of matter; and in like fashion 
when what is white becomes black. But in this sacrament 
the substance of the bread or of the wine is the term where- 
from, while the body or the blood of Christ is the term 
whereunto : for Ambrose says in De Officiis (De Myster. ix.) : 
Before the blessing it is called another species, after the blessing 
the body of Christ is signified. Therefore, when the conse- 
cration takes place, the substance of the bread or wine no 
longer remains, unless perchance dissolved into its (original) 
matter. 

Obj. 3. Further, one of two contradictories must be true. 
But this proposition is false: After the consecration the sub- 
stance of the bread or wine is something. Consequently, this 
is true: The substance of the bread or wine is nothing. 

On the contrary, Augustine says (Qq. 83): God is not 
the cause of tending to nothing. But this sacrament is 
wrought by Divine power. Therefore, in this sacrament the 
substance of the bread or wine is not annihilated. 

/ answer that. Because the substance of the bread and 
wine does not remain in this sacrament, some, deeming that 
it is impossible for the substance of the bread and wine to be 
changed into Christ's flesh and blood, have maintained that 
by the consecration, the substance of the bread and wine 
is either dissolved into the original matter, or that it is 
annihilated. 

Now the original matter into which mixed bodies can be 
dissolved is the four elements. For dissolution cannot be 
made into primary matter, so that a subject can exist 
without a form, since matter cannot exist without a form. 
But since after the consecration nothing remains under the 
sacramental species except the body and the blood of Christ, 
it will be necessary to say that the elements into which the 
substance of the bread and wine is dissolved, depart from 
thence by local motion, which would be perceived by the 
senses. — In like manner also the substance of the bread or 
wine remains until the last instant of the consecration; 



270 THE '* SUMMA THEOLOGICA " q. 75. Art. 3 

but in the last instant of the consecration there is already 
present there the substance of the body or blood of Christ, 
just as the form is already present in the last instant of 
generation. Hence no instant can be assigned in which 
the original matter can be there. For it cannot be said 
that the substance of the bread or wine is dissolved gradually 
into the original matter, or that it successively quits the 
species, for if this began to be done in the last instant of its 
consecration, then at the one time under part of the host 
there would be the body of Christ together with the sub- 
stance of bread, which is contrary to what has been said 
above (A. 2). But if this begin to come to pass before the 
consecration, there will then be a time in which under one 
part of the host there will be neither the substance of bread 
nor the body of Christ, which is not fitting. They seem 
indeed to have taken this into careful consideration ; where- 
fore they formulated their proposition with an alternative, 
viz., that (the substance) may be annihilated. But even 
this cannot stand, because no way can be assigned whereby 
Christ's true body can begin to be in this sacrament, except 
by the change of the substance of bread into it, which change 
is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of the 
substance of the bread, or dissolution into the original 
matter. — Likewise no cause can be assigned for such dis- 
solution or annihilation, since the effect of the sacrament is 
signified by the form : but neither of these is signified by these 
words of the form: This is My body. Hence it is clear that 
the aforesaid opinion is false. 

Reply Ohj. i. The substance of the bread or wine, after 
the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental 
species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is 
annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just 
as, if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or 
elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The form, which is the term w herefrom, is 
not changed into another form; but one form succeeds 
another in the subject; and therefore the first form remains 
only in the potentiality of matter. But here the substance 



OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE 271 

of the bread is changed into the body of Christ, as stated 
above. Hence the conclusion does not follow. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Although after the consecration this proposi- 
tion is false: The substance of the bread is something, still 
that into which the substance of the bread is changed, is 
something, and consequently the substance of the bread is 
not annihilated. 

Fourth Article, 
whether bread can be converted into the body of 

CHRIST ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i . It seems that bread cannot be converted into 
the body of Christ. For conversion is a kind of change. 
But in every change there must be some subject, which 
from being previously in potentiality is now in act; because 
as is said in Phys. iii. : motion is the act of a thing existing 
in potentiality. But no subject can be assigned for the 
substance of the bread and of the body of Christ, because 
it is of the very nature of substance for it not to be in a 
subject, as it is said in Prcedic. iii. Therefore it is not 
possible for the whole substance of the bread to be con- 
verted into the body of Christ. 

Obj. 2. Further, the form of the thing into which another 
is converted, begins anew to inhere in the matter of the 
thing converted into it: as when air is changed into fire 
not already existing, the form of fire begins anew to be in 
the matter of the air: and in like manner when food is 
converted into non-pre-existing man, the form of the man 
begins to be anew in the matter of the food. Therefore, 
if bread be changed into the body of Christ, the form of 
Christ's body must necessarily begin to be in the matter 
of the bread, which is false. Consequently, the bread is 
not changed into the substance of Christ's body. 

Obj. 3. Further, when two things are diverse, one never 
becomes the other, as whiteness never becomes blackness, 
as is stated in Phys. i. But since two contrary forms are of 
themselves diverse, as being the principles of formal dif- 



272 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 75. Art. 4 

ference, so two signate matters are of themselves diverse, 
as being the principles of material distinction. Conse- 
quently, it is not possible for this matter of bread to become 
this matter whereby Christ's body is individuated, and so 
it is not possible for this substance of bread to be changed 
into the substance of Christ's body. 

On the contrary, Eusebius Emesenus says: To thee it 
ought neither to he a novelty nor an impossibility that earthly 
and mortal things he changed into the suhstance of Christ. 

I answer that, As stated above (A. 2), since Christ's true 
body is in this sacrament, and since it does not begin to be 
there by local motion, nor is it contained therein as in a 
place, as is evident from what was stated above (A. i ad 2), 
it must be said then that it begins to be there by conversion 
of the substance of bread into itself. 

Yet this change is not like natural changes, but is entirely 
supernatural, and effected by God's power alone. Hence 
Ambrose says* [{De Sacram. iv.) : See how Christ's word 
changes nature's laws, as He wills : a man is not wont to he 
horn save of man and woman : see therefore that against the 
estahlished law and order a man is horn of a Virgin : and] 
{De Myster. iv.) : It is clear that a Virgin hegot heyond the 
order of nature : and what we make is the hody from the Virgin. 
Why, then, do you look for nature's order in Christ's hody, 
since the Lord Jesus was Himself hrought forth of a Virgin 
heyond nature? Chrysostom likewise [Hom. xlvii.), com- 
menting on John vi. 64, — The words which I have spoken 
to you, namely, of this sacrament, are spirit and life, says: 
i.e., spiritual, having nothing. carnal, nor natural consequence ; 
hut they are rent from all such necessity which exists upon 
earth, and from the laws here estahlished. 

For it is evident that every agent acts according as it is 
in act. But every created agent is limited in its act, as 
being of a determinate genus and species : and consequently 
the action of every created agent bears upon some deter- 
minate act. Now the determination of every thing in 
actual existence comes from its form. Consequently, no 

* The passage in the brackets is not in the Leonine edition. 



OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE 273 

natural or created agent can act except by changing the 
form in something ; and on this account every change made 
according to nature's laws is a formal change. But God 
is infinite act, as stated in the First Part (Q. VII., A. i; 
Q. XXV., A. 2) ; hence His action extends to the whole 
nature of being. Therefore He can work not only formal 
conversion, so that diverse forms succeed each other in 
the same subject; but also the change of all being, so that, 
to wit, the whole substance of one thing be changed into; 
the whole substance of another. And this is done by Divine 
power in this sacrament; for the whole substance of the 
bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ's body, 
and the whole substance of the wine into the whole sub- 
stance of Christ's blood. Hence this is not a formal, but 
a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural 
movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called 
transuhstantiation. "~ 

Reply Ohj. i. This objection holds good in respect of 
formal change, because it belongs to a form to be in matter 
or in a subject; but it does not hold good in respect of the 
change of the entire substance. Hence, since this substantial 
change implies a certain order of substances, one of which 
is changed into the other, it is in both substances as in a 
subject, just as order and number. 

Reply Ohj. 2. This argument also is true of formal con- 
version or change, because, as stated above (A. ad i), a 
form must be in some matter or subject. But this is not 
so in a change of the entire substance ; for in this case no 
subject is possible. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Form cannot be changed into form, nor 
matter into matter by the power of any finite agent. Such 
a change, however, can be made by the power of an infinite 
agent, which has control over all being, because the nature 
of being is common to both forms and to both matters ; and 
whatever there is of being in the one, the author of being 
can change into whatever there is of being in the other, 
withdrawing that whereby it was distinguished from the 
other. 

TTT. 3 18 



274 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 75. Art. 5 



Fifth Article. 

whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain 
in this sacrament after the change ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 
Objection i. It seems that the accidents of the bread and 
wine do not remain in this sacrament. For when that which 
comes first is removed, that which follows is also taken 
away. But substance is naturally before accident, as is 
proved in Metaph. vii. Since, then, after consecration, 
the substance of the bread does not remain in this sacra- 
ment, it seems that its accidents cannot remain. 

Obj. ^. Further, there ought not to be any deception in 
a sacrament of truth. But we judge of substance by 
accidents. It seems, then, that human judgment is de- 
ceived, if, while the accidents remain, the substance of the 
bread does not. Consequently this is unbecoming to this 
sacrament. 

Obj. 3. Further, although our faith is not subject to 
reason, still it is not contrary to reason, but above it, as 
was said in the beginning of this work (P. l.,Q. I., A. 6 ad 2; 
A. 8) . But our reason has its origin in the senses. Therefore 
our faith ought not to be contrary to the senses, as it is 
when sense judges that to be bread which faith believes 
to be the substance of Christ's body. Therefore it is not 
befitting this sacrament for the accidents of bread to remain 
subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to 
remain. 

Obj. 4. Further, what remains after the change has taken 
place seems to be the subject of change. If therefore the 
accidents of the bread remain after the change has been 
effected, it seems that the accidents are the subject of the 
change. But this is impossible; for an accident cannot have 
an accident [Metaph. iii.). Therefore the accidents of the 
bread and wine ought not to remain in this sacrament. 

On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Sen- 
tences of Prosper (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xiii.) : 



OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE 275 

Under the species which we behold, of bread and wine, we 
honour invisible things, i.e., flesh and blood. 

I answer that, It is evident to sense that all the accidents 
of the bread and wine remain after the consecration. And 
this is reasonably done by Divine providence. First of all, 
because it is not customary, but horrible, for men to eat 
human flesh, and to drink blood. And therefore Christ's 
flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken of under the 
species of those things which are the more commonly used 
by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this 
sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, if we were to 
eat Our Lord under His own species. Thirdly, that while 
we receive Our Lord's body and blood invisibly, this may 
redound to the merit of faith. 

Reply Obj. i. As is said in the book De Causis, an effect 
depends more on the first cause than on the second. And 
therefore by God's power, which is the first cause of all 
things, it is possible for that which follows to remain, while 
that which is first is taken away. 

Reply Obj. 2. There is no deception in this sacrament; for 
the accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly- 
present. But the intellect, whose proper object is substance, as 
is said in De Anima iii., is preserved by faith from deception. 

And this serves as answer to the third argument; be- 
cause faith is not contrary to the senses, but concerns 
things to which sense does not reach. 

Reply Obj. 4. This change has not properly a subject, as 
was stated above (A. 4 ad i) ; nevertheless the accidents 
which remain have some resemblance of a subject. 

Sixth Article. 

whether the substantial form of the bread remains 
in this sacrament after the consecration ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 

Objection i . It seems that the substantial form of the bread 
remains in this sacrament after the consecration. For it has 
been said (A. 5) that the accidents remain after the conse- 



276 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 75. Art. 6 

cration. But since bread is an artificial thing, its form is 
an accident. Therefore it remains after the consecration. 

Obj. 2. Further, the form of Christ's body is His soul: 
for it is said in De Anima ii., that the soul is the act of a 
physical body which has life in potentiality. But it cannot 
be said that the substantial form of the bread is changed 
into the soul. Therefore it appears that it remains after 
the consecration. 

Obj. 3. Further, the proper operation of a thing follows 
its substantial form. But what remains in this sacrament, 
nourishes, and performs every operation which bread would 
do were it present. Therefore the substantial form of the 
bread remains in this sacrament after the consecration. 

On the contrary, The substantial form of bread is of the 
substance of bread. But the substance of the bread is 
changed into the body of Christ, as stated above (AA. 2, 3, 4). 
Therefore the substantial form of the bread does not remain. 

I answer that, Some have contended that after the con- 
secration not only do the accidents of the bread remain, but 
also its substantial form. But this cannot be. First of all, 
because if the substantial form of the bread were to remain, 
nothing of the bread would be changed into the body of 
Christ, excepting the matter; and so it would follow that 
it would be changed, not into the whole body of Christ, 
but into its matter, which is repugnant to the form of the 
sacrament, wherein it is said : This is My body. 

Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread 
were to remain, it would remain either in matter, or sepa- 
rated from matter. The first cannot be, for if it were to 
remain in the matter of the bread, then the whole substance 
of the bread would remain, which is against what was said 
above (A. 2). Nor could it remain in any other matter, 
because the proper form exists only in its proper matter. — 
But if it were to remain separate from matter, it would then 
be an actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; 
for all forms separated from matter are such. 

Thirdly, it would be unbefitting this sacrament: be- 
cause the accidents of the bread remain in this sacrament, 



OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE 277 

in order that the body of Christ may be seen under them, 
and not under its proper species, as stated above (A. 5). 

And therefore it must be said that the substantial form 
of the bread does not remain. 

Reply Ohj. i. There is nothing to prevent art from 
making a thing whose form is not an accident, but a 
substantial form; as frogs and serpents can be produced 
by art: for art produces such forms not by its own power, 
but by the power of natural energies. And in this way 
it produces the substantial forms of bread, by the power 
of fire baking the matter made up of flour and water. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The soul is the form of the body, giving it 
the whole order of perfect being, i.e., being, corporeal being, 
and animated being, and so on. Therefore the form of 
the bread is changed into the form of Christ's body, accord- 
ing as the latter gives corporeal being, but not according as 
it bestows animated being. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Some of the operations of bread follow it by 
reason of the accidents, such as to affect the sense's, and 
such operations are found in the species of the bread after 
the consecration on account of the accidents which remain. 
But some other operations follow the bread either by 
reason of the matter^ such as that it is changed into some- 
thing else, or else by reason of the substantial form, such 
as an operation consequent upon its species, for instance, 
that it strengthens man's heart (Ps. ciii. 15) ; and such opera- 
tions are found in this sacrament, not on account of the 
form or matter remaining, but because they are bestowed 
miraculously upon the accidents themselves, as will be 
said later (Q. LXXVIL, A. 3 a^ 2, 3; AA. 5, 6). 

Seventh Article. 
whether this change is wrought instantaneously ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 

Ohjection i. It seems that this change is not wrought 
instantaneously, but successively. For in this change there 
is first the substance of bread, and afterwards the substance 



278 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 75. Art. 7 

of Christ's body. Neither, then, is in the same instant, but 
in two instants. But there is a mid-time between every two 
instants. Therefore this change must take place according 
to the succession of time, which is between the last instant 
in which the bread is there, and the first instant in which 
the body of Christ is present. 

Ohj. 2. Further, in every change something is in becoming 
and something is in being. But these two things do not 
exist at the one time, for, what is in becoming, is not yet, 
whereas what is in being, already is. Consequently, there 
is a before and an after in such change : and so necessarily 
the change cannot be instantaneous, but successive. 

Obj. 3. Further, Ambrose says {De Sacram. iv.) that tMs 
sacrament is made by the words of Christ. But Christ's 
words are pronounced successively. Therefore the change 
takes place successively. 

On the contrary, This change is effected by a power which 
is infinite, to which it belongs to operate in an instant. 

/ answer that, A change may be instantaneous from a 
threefold reason. First on the part of the form, which is' 
the terminus of the change. For, if it be a form that 
receives more and less, it is acquired by its subject 
successively, such as health; and therefore because a sub- 
stantial form does not receive more and less, it follows 
that its introduction into matter is instantaneous. 

Secondly on the part of the subject, which sometimes is 
prepared successively for receiving the form; thus water is 
heated successively. When, however, the subject itself is 
in the ultimate disposition for receiving the form, it receives 
it suddenly, as a transparent body is illuminated suddenly. 
Thirdly on the part of the agent, which possesses infinite 
power: wherefore it can instantly dispose the matter for 
the form. Thus it is written (Mark vii. 34) that when Christ 
had said, ' Ephpheta,' which is ' Be thou opened,' immediately 
his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed. 

For these three reasons this conversion is instantaneous. 
First, because the substance of Christ's body which is the 
term of .this conversion, does not receive more or less. — 



OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE 279 

Secondly, because in this conversion there is no subject to 
be disposed successively. — Thirdly, because it is effected 
by God's infinite power. 

Reply Ohj. i. Some* do not grant simply that there is a 
mid- time between every two instants. For they say that 
this is true of two instants referring to the same movement, 
but not if they refer to different things. Hence between 
the instant that marks the close of rest, and another which 
marks the beginning of movement, there is no mid- time. But 
in this they are mistaken, because the unity of time and 
of instant, or even their plurality, is not taken according to 
movements of any sort, but according to the first movement of 
the heavens, which is the measure of all movement and rest. 

Accordingly others grant this of the time which measures 
movement depending on the movement of the heavens. But 
there are some movements which are not dependent on the 
movement of the heavens, nor measured by it, as was said in 
the First Part (Q. LHL, A. 3) concerning the movements of 
the angels. Hence between two instants responding to those 
movements there is no mid- time. — But this is not to the point, 
because although the change in question has no relation of 
itself to the movement of the heavens, still it follows the pro- 
nouncing of the words, which (pronouncing) must necessarily 
be measured by the movement of the heavens. And there- 
fore there must of necessity be a mid- time between every two 
signate instants in connection with that change. 

Some say therefore that the instant in which the bread 
was last, and the instant in which the body of Christ is 
first, are indeed two in comparison with the things measured, 
but are one comparatively to the time measuring; as when 
two lines touch, there are two points on the part of the two 
lines, but one point on the part of the place containing 
them. But here there is no likeness, because instant and 
time is not the intrinsic measure of particular movements, as 
a line and point are of a body, but only the extrinsic measure, 
as place is to bodies. 

* Cf. Albert the Great, IV Sent.. Dist. xi.; S. Bonaventure, IV. 
Sent., Dist. xi. 



28o THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 75. Art. 7 

Hence others say that it is the same instant in fact, but 
another according to reason. But according to this it 
would follow that things really opposite would exist to- 
gether; for diversity of reason does not change a thing 
objectively. 

And therefore it must be said that this change, as stated 
above, is wrought by Christ's words which are spoken by 
the priest, so that the last instant of pronouncing the 
words is the first instant in which Christ's body is in the 
sacrament; and that the substance of the bread is there 
during the whole preceding time. Of this time no instant 
is to be taken as proximately preceding the last one, 
because time is not made up of successive instants, as is 
proved in Phys. vi. And therefore a first instant can 
be assigned in which Christ's body is present; but a last 
instant cannot be assigned in which the substance of bread 
is there, but a last time can be assigned. And the same 
holds good in natural changes, as is evident from the Philoso- 
pher [Phys. viii.). 

Reply Ohj. 2. In instantaneous changes a thing is in 
becoming, and is in being simultaneously; just as becoming 
illuminated and to be actually illuminated are simultaneous : 
for in such, a thing is said to be in being according as it now 
is; but to be in becoming, according as it was not before. 

Reply Obj. 3. As stated above [ad. i), this change comes 
about in the last instant of the pronouncing of the words; 
for then the meaning of the words is finished, which mean- 
ing is efiicacious in the forms of the sacraments. And 
therefore it does not follow that this change is successive. 

Eighth Article. 

whether this proposition is false! the body of christ 
is made out of bread ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that this proposition is false: The 
Body of Christ is made out of bread. For everything out of 
which another is made, is that which is made the other; 



OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE 281 

but not conversely: for we say that a black thing is made 
out of a white thing, and that a white thing is made black : 
and although we may say that a man becomes black, still 
we do not say that a black thing is made out of a man, as 
is shown in Phys. i. If it be true, then, that Christ's body 
is made out of bread, it will be true to say that bread is 
made the body of Christ. But this seems to be false, 
because the bread is not the subject of the making, but 
rather its term. Therefore, it is not said truly that Christ's 
body is made out of bread. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the term of becoming is something that 
is, or something that is made. But this proposition is never 
true: The bread is the body of Christ ; or The bread is made 
the body of Christ ; or again. The bread will be the body of 
Christ. Therefore it seems that not even this is true : The 
body of Christ is made out of bread. 

Obj. 3. Further, everything out of which another is made 
is converted into that which is made from it. But this 
proposition seems to be false: The bread is converted into 
the body of Christ, because such conversion seems to be more 
miraculous than the creation of the world, in which it is 
not said that non-being is converted into being. Therefore 
it seems that this proposition likewise is false: The body of 
Christ is made out of bread. 

Obj. 4. Further, that out of which something is made, 
can be that thing. But this proposition is false: Bread 
can be the body of Christ. Therefore this is likewise false: 
The body of Christ is made out of bread. 

On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv.) : When 
the consecration takes place, the body of Christ is made out 
of the bread. 

I answer that, This conversion of bread into the body of 
Christ has something in common with creation, and with 
natural transmutation, and in some respect differs from 
both. For the order of the terms is common to these three; 
that is, that after one thing there is another (for, in creation 
there is being after non-being; in this sacrament, Christ's 
body after the substance of bread; in natural transmuta- 



282 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 75. Art. 8 

tion white after black, or fire after air) ; and that the afore- 
said terms are not coexistent. 

Now the conversion, of which we are speaking, has this 
in common with creation, that in neither of them is there 
any common subject belonging to either of the extremes; the 
contrary of which appears in every natural transmutation. 

Again, this conversion has something in common with 
natural transmutation in two respects, although not in the 
same fashion. First of all because in both, one of the 
extremes passes into the other, as bread into Christ's body, 
and air into fire; whereas non-being is not converted into 
bping. But this comes to pass differently on the one side 
and on the other ; for in this sacrament the whole substance 
of the bread passes into the whole body of Christ; whereas 
in natural transmutation the matter of the one receives 
the form of the other, the previous form being laid aside. 
Secondly, they have this in common, that on both sides 
something remains the same ; whereas this does not happen 
in creation: yet differently; for the same matter or subject 
remains in natural transmutation; whereas in this sacra- 
ment the same accidents remain. 

From these observations we can gather the various ways 
of speaking in such matters. For, because in no one of 
the aforesaid three things are the extremes coexistent, 
therefore in none of them can one extreme be predicated 
of the other by the substantive verb of the present tense: 
for we do not say. Non-being is being, or. Bread is the body 
of Christ, or, Air is fire, or. White is black. Yet because of 
the relationship of the extremes in all of them we can use 
the preposition ex (out of), which denotes order; for we can 
truty and properly say that being is made out of non-being, 
and out of bread, the body of Christ, and out of air, fire, and 
out of white, black. But because in creation one of the 
extremes does not pass into the other, we cannot use the 
word conversion in creation, so as to say that non-being is 
converted into being : we can, however, use the word in this 
sacrament, just as in natural transmutation. But since in 
this sacrament the whole substance is converted into the 



OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE 283 

whole substance, on that account this conversion is properly 
termed transubstantiation. 

Again, since there is no subject of this conversion, the 
things which are true in natural conversion by reason of the 
subject, are not to be granted in this conversion. And in 
the first place indeed it is evident that potentiality to the 
opposite follows a subject, by reason whereof we say that 
a white thing can be black, or that air can be fire ; although 
the latter is not so proper as the former : for the subject of 
whiteness, in which there is potentiality to blackness, is 
the whole substance of the white thing; since whiteness is 
not a part thereof; whereas the subject of the form of air 
is part thereof: hence when it is said, Air can be fire, it is 
verified by synecdoche by reason of the part. But in this 
conversion, and similarly in creation, because there is no 
subject, it is not said that one extreme can be the other, as 
that non-being can be being, or that bread can be the body 
of Christ : and for the same reason it cannot be properly 
said that being is made of [de) non-being, or that the body 
of Christ is made of bread, because this preposition of [de) 
denotes a consubstantial cause, which consubstantiality of 
the extremes in natural transmutations is considered accord- 
ing to something common in the subject. And for the 
same reason it is not granted that bread will be the body of 
Christ, or that it may become the body of Christ, just as it is 
not granted in creation that non-being will be being, or that 
non-being may become being, because this manner of speak- 
ing is verified in natural transmutations by reason of the 
subject: for instance, when we say that a white thing be- 
comes black, or a white thing will be black. 

Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, 
something remains the same, namely, the accidents of the 
bread, as stated above (A. 5), some of these expressions 
may be admitted by way of similitude, namely, that bread 
is the body of Christ, or, bread will be the body of Christ, or 
the body of Christ is made of bread ; provided that by the 
word bread is not understood the substance of bread, but in 
general that which is contained under the species of bread, under 



284 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 75. Art. 8 

which species there is first contained the substance of bread, 
and afterwards the body of Christ. 

Reply Ohj. i. That out of which something else is made, 
sometimes impHes together with the subject, one of the 
extremes of the transmutation, as when it is said a black 
thing is made out of a white one ; but sometimes it imphes 
only the opposite or the extreme, as when it is said — out of 
morning comes the day. And so it is not granted that the 
latter becomes the former, that is, that morning becomes the 
day. So likewise in the rnatter in hand, although it may 
be said properly that the body of Christ is made out of bread, 
yet it is not said properly that bread becomes the body of 
Christ, except by similitude, as was said above. 

Reply Obj. 2. That out of which another is made, will 
sometimes be that other because of the subject which is 
implied. And therefore, since there is no subject of this 
change, the comparison does not hold. 

Reply Obj. 3. In this change there are many more diffi- 
culties than in creation, in which there is but this one diffi- 
culty, that something is made out of nothing; yet this 
belongs to the proper mode of production of the first cause, 
which presupposes nothing else. But in this conversion 
not only is it difficult for this whole to be changed into that 
whole, so that nothing of the former may remain (which does 
not belong to the common mode of production of a cause), 
but furthermore it has this difficulty that the accidents 
remain while the substance is destroyed, and many other 
difficulties of which we shall treat hereafter (Q. LXXVIL). 
Nevertheless the word conversion is admitted in this sacra- 
ment, but not in creation, as stated above. 

Reply Obj. 4. As was observed above, potentiality belongs 
to the subject, whereas there is no subject in this conversion. 
And therefore it is not granted that bread can be the body 
of Christ : for this conversion does not come about by the 
passive potentiaHty of the creature, but solely by the 
active power of the Creator. 



QUESTION LXXVI. 

OF THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT. 

■{In Eight Articles. ) 

We have now to consider the manner in which Christ 
exists in this sacrament; and under this head there are 
eight points of inquiry: (i) Whether the whole Christ is 
under this sacrament ? (2) Whether the entire Christ is 
under each species of the sacrament ? (3) Whether the 
entire Christ is under every part of the species ? (4) Whether 
all the dimensions of Christ's body are in this sacrament ? 

(5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally ? 

(6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is 
moved when the host or chalice is moved ? (7) Whether 
Christ's body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by the 
eye ? (8) Whether the true body of Christ remains in this 
sacrament when He is seen under the appearance of a child 
or of flesh ? 

First Article. 

whether the whole christ is contained under this 

sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the whole Christ is not con- 
tained under this sacrament, because Christ begins to be in 
this sacrament by conversion of the bread and wine. But 
it is evident that the bread and wine cannot be changed 
either into the Godhead or into the soul of Christ. Since 
therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely, the 
Godhead, soul and body, as shown above (Q. II., A. 5; 

285 



286 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '' Q. 76. Art. i 

Q. v., AA. I, 3), it seems that the entire Christ is not under 
this sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, Christ is in this sacrament, forasmuch 
as it is ordained to the refection of the faithful, which con- 
sists in food and drink, as stated above (Q. LXXIV., A. i). 
But Our Lord said (John vi. 56) : My flesh is meat indeed, 
and My blood is drink indeed. Therefore, only the flesh 
and blood of Christ are contained in this sacrament. But 
there are many other parts of Christ's body, for instance, the 
nerves, bones, and suchlike. Therefore the entire Christ is 
not contained under this sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, a body of greater quantity cannot be 
contained under the measure of a lesser. But the measure 
of the bread and wine is much smaller than the measure 
of Christ's body. Therefore it is impossible that the entire 
Christ be contained under this sacrament. 

On the contrary, Ambrose says [De Offic.) : Christ is in this 
sacrament. 

I answer that, It is absolutely necessary to confess accord- 
ing to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacra- 
ment. Yet we must know that there is something of 
Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it 
were, by the power of the sacrament; secondly, from 
natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there 
is under the species of this sacrament that into which the 
pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, 
as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective 
in this as in the other sacraments ; for instance, by the 
words — This is My body, or, This is My blood. But from 
natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that 
which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid 
conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really 
united, then wherever the one is really, there must the 
other also be : since things really united together are only 
distinguished by an operation of the mind. 

Reply Ohj. i. Because the change of the bread and wine 
is not terminated at the Godhead or the soul of Christ, it 
follows as a consequence that the Godhead or the soul of 



HOW CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT 287 

Christ is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacra- 
ment, but from real concomitance. For since the Godhead 
never set aside the assumed body, wherever the body of 
Christ is, there, of necessity, must the Godhead be; and 
therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in this sacra- 
ment concomitantly with His body. Hence we read in 
the profession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap, xxvi.) : We 
are made partakers of the tody and blood of Christ, not as 
taking common flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word 
in dignity, hut the truly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself. 
On the other hand. His soul was truly separated from 
His body, as stated above (Q. L., A. 5). And therefore had 
this sacrament been celebrated during those three days 
when He was dead, the soul of Christ would not have been 
there, neither by the power of the sacrament, nor from real 
concomitance. But since Christ rising from the dead dieth 
now no more (Rom. vi. 9), His soul is always really united 
with His body. And therefore in this sacrament the body 
indeed of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, 
but His soul from real concomitance. 

Reply Ohj. 2. By the power of the sacrament there is con- 
tained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the 
flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones, the 
nerves, and the like. And this is apparent from the form 
of this sacrament, wherein it is not said : This is My flesh, 
but — This is My body. Accordingly, when Our Lord said 
(John vi. 56) : My flesh is meat indeed, there the word flesh 
is put for the entire body, because according to human 
custom it seems to be more adapted for eating, as men 
commonly are fed on the flesh of animals, but not on the 
bones or the like. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As has been already stated (Q. LXXV., A. 5), 
after the consecration of the bread into the body of Christ, 
or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both remain. 
From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread 
or wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of 
Christ, but substance into substance. And so the substance 
of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the 



288 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 76. Art. i 

power of the sacrament, but not the dimensions of Christ's 
body or blood. Hence it is clear that the body of Christ is 
in this sacrament hy way of substance, and not by way of 
quantity. But the proper totality of substance is contained 
indifferently in a small or large quantity ; as the whole nature 
of air in a great or small amount of air, and the whole nature 
of a man in a big or small individual. Wherefore, after the 
consecration, the whole substance of Christ's body and 
blood is contained in this sacrament, just as the whole 
substance of the bread and wine was contained there before 
the consecration. 

Second Article. 

whether the whole christ is contained under each 
species of this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the whole Christ is not con- 
tained under both species of this sacrament. For this sacra- 
ment is ordained for the salvation of the faithful, not by 
virtue of the species, but by virtue of what is contained 
under the species, because the species were there even before 
the consecration, from which comes the power of this sacra- 
ment. If nothing, then, be contained under one species, 
but what is contained under the other, and if the whole Christ 
be contained under both, it seems that one of them is 
superfluous in this sacrament. 

Obj. 2. Further, it was stated above (A. i ad i) that all 
the other parts of the body, such as the bones, nerves, and 
the like, are comprised under the name of flesh. But the 
blood is one of the parts of the human body, as Aristotle 
proves {De Anima. Histor. i.). If, then, Christ's blood be 
contained under the species of bread, just as the other 
parts of the body are contained there, the blood ought not 
to be consecrated apart, just as no other part of the body 
is consecrated separately. 

Obj. 3. Further, what is once in being cannot be again in 
becoming. But Christ's body has already begun to be in 
this sacrament by the consecration of the bread. Therefore, 



HOW CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT 289 

it cannot begin again to be there by the consecration of the 
wine; and so Christ's body will not be contained under the 
species of the wine, and accordingly neither the entire Christ. 
Therefore the whole Christ is not contained under each 
species. 

On the contrary, The gloss on i Cor. xi. 25, commenting 
on the word Chalice, says that under each species, namely, 
of the bread and wine, the same is received ; and thus it 
seems that Christ is entire under each species. 

/ answer that, After what we have said above (A. i), 
it must be held most certainly that the whole Christ is 
under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. 
For the body of Christ is indeed present under the 
species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while 
the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated 
above (A. i ad i) in regard to the soul and Godhead of 
Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present 
by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real con- 
comitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: because now 
Christ's blood is not separated from His body, as it was at 
the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacra- 
ment had been celebrated then, the body of Christ would 
have been under the species of the bread, but without the 
blood; and, under the species of the wine, the blood would 
have been present without the body, as it was then, in 
fact. 

Reply Ohj. i. Although the whole Christ is under each 
species, yet it is so not without purpose. For in the first 
place this serves to represent Christ's Passion, in which 
the blood was separated from the body; hence in the form 
for the consecration of the blood mention is made of its 
shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this 
sacrament, that Christ's body be shown apart to the faith- 
ful as food, and the blood as drink. Thirdly, it is in 
keeping with its effect, in which sense it was stated above 
(Q. LXXIV., A. i) that the body is offered for the salvation 
of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul. 

Reply Obj. 2. In Christ's Passion, of which this is the 

III. 3 19 



290 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 76. Art. 2 

memorial, the other parts of the body were not separated 
from one another, as the blood was, but the body remained 
entire, according to Exod, xii. 46: You shall not break a 
hone thereof. And therefore in this sacrament the blood is 
consecrated apart from the body, but no other part is 
consecrated separately from the rest. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As stated above, the body of Christ is not 
under the species of wine by the power of the sacrament, but 
by real concomitance: and therefore by the consecration 
of the wine the body of Christ is not there of itself, but 
concomitantly. 

Third Article. 

whether christ is entire under every part of the 
species of the bread and wine ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that Christ is not entire under every 
part of the species of bread and wine. Because those species 
can be divided infinitely. If therefore Christ be entirely 
under every part of the said species, it would follow that 
He is in this sacrament an infinite number of times: which 
is unreasonable; because the infinite is repugnant not only 
to nature, but likewise to grace. 

Ohj. 2. Further, since Christ's is an organic body, it has 
parts determinately distant; for a determinate distance of 
the individual parts from each other is of the very nature 
of an organic body, as that of eye from eye, and eye from 
ear. But this could not be so, if Christ were entire under 
every part of the species; for every part would have to be 
under every other part, and so where one part would be, 
there another part would be. It cannot be then that the 
entire Christ is under every part of the host or of the wine 
contained in the chalice 

Obj. 3. Further, Christ's body always retains the true 
nature of a body, nor is it ever changed into a spirit. Now 
it is the nature of a body for it to be quantity having position 
{Predic. iv.). But it belongs to the nature of this quantity 
that the various parts exist in various parts of place. 



HOW CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT 291 

Therefore, apparently it is impossible for the entire Christ 
to be under every part of the species. 

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory, 
Sacramentarium) : Each receives Christ the Lord, Who is 
entire under every morsel, nor is He less in each portion, 
hut bestows Himself entire under each. 

I answer that. As was observed above (A. i ad 3), because 
the substance of Christ's body is in this sacrament by the 
power of the sacrament, while dimensive quantity is there 
by reason of real concomitance, consequently Christ's body 
is in this sacrament substantively, that is, in the way in 
which substance is under dimensions, but not after the 
manner of dimensions, which means, not in the way in 
which the dimensive quantity of a body is under the dimen- 
sive quantity of place. » 

Now it is evident that the whole nature of a substance 
is under every part of the dimensions under which it is 
contained; just as the entire nature of air is under every 
part of air, and the entire nature of bread under every 
part of bread ; and this indifferently, whether the dimensions 
be actually divided (as when the air is divided or the bread 
cut) , or whether they be actually undivided, but potentially 
divisible. And therefore it is manifest that the entire 
Christ is under every part of the species of the bread, even 
while the host remains entire, and not merely when it is 
broken, as some say, giving the example of an image which 
appears in a mirror, which appears as one in the unbroken 
mirror, whereas when the mirror is broken, there is an 
image in each part of the broken mirror: for the com- 
parison is not perfect, because the multiplying of such 
images results in the broken mirror on account of the 
various reflections in the various parts of the mirror ; but 
here there is only one consecration, whereby Christ's body 
is in this sacrament. 

Reply Obj. i. Number follows division, and therefore so 
long as quantity remains actually undivided, neither is the 
substance of any thing several times under its proper dimen- 
sions, nor is Christ's body several times under the dimensions 



292 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 76. Art. 3 

of the bread; and consequently not an infinite number of 
times, but just as many times as it is divided into parts. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The determinate distance of parts in an 
organic body is based upon its dimensive quantity; but 
the nature of substance precedes even dimensive quantity. 
And since the conversion of the substance of the bread is 
terminated at the substance of the body of Christ, and 
since according to the manner of substance the body of 
Christ is properly and directly in this sacrament; such 
distance of parts is indeed in Christ's true body, which, 
however, is not compared to this sacrament according to 
such distance, but according to the manner of its substance, 
as stated above (A. i ad '^). 

Reply Ohj. 3. This argument is based on the nature of a 
body, arising from dimensive quantity. But it was said 
above [ad 2) that Christ's body is compared with this 
sacrament not by reason of dimensive quantity, but by 
reason of its substance, as already stated. 

Fourth Article. 

whether the whole dimensive quantity of christ's 
body is in this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the whole dimensive quantity 
of Christ's body is not in this sacrament. For it was said 
(A. 3) that Christ's entire body is contained under every 
part of the consecrated host. But no dimensive quantity 
is contained entirely in any whole, and in its every part. 
Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive quantity 
of Christ's body to be there. 

Ohj. 2. Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quan- 
tities to be together, even though one be separate from its 
subject, and the other in a natural body, as is clear from 
the Philosopher [Metaph. iii.) . But the dimensive quantity 
of the bread remains in this sacrament, as is evident to 
our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quantity of 
Christ's body is not there. 



HOW CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT 293 

Ohj. \ Further, if two unequal dimensive quantities be 
set side by side, the greater will overlap the lesser. But the 
dimensive quantity of Christ's body is considerably larger 
than the dimensive quantity of the consecrated host, accord- 
ing to every dimension. Therefore, if the dimensive 
quantity of Christ's body be in this sacrament together with 
the dimensive quantity of the host, the dimensive quantity 
of Christ's 6 body is extended beyond the quantity of the 
host, whicli nevertheless is not without the substance of 
Christ's bidy. Therefore, the substance of Christ's body 
wiU be inUhis sacrament even outside the species of the 
bread, whi^ is unreasonable, since the substance of Christ's 
body is in this sacrament, only by the consecration of the 
bread, as stated above (A. 2). Consequently, it is im- 
possible for the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body 
to be in this sacrament. 

On the contrary, The existence of the dimensive quantity of 
any body cannot be separated from the existence of its sub- 
stance. But in this sacrament the entire substance of Christ's 
body is present, as stated above (AA. 1,3). Therefore the en- 
tire dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament. 

/ answer that, As stated above (A. i), any part of Christ 
is in this sacrament in two ways : in one way, by the power 
of the sacrament; in another, from real concomitance. By 
the power of the sacrament the dimensive quantity of ^ 
Christ's body is not in this sacrament; for, by the power of 
the sacrament that is present in this sacrament, whereat the 
conversion is terminated. But the conversion which takes 
place in this sacrament is terminated directly at the sub- 
stance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is 
evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the 
bread remains after the consecration, while only the 
substance of the bread passes away. 

Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not 
really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other 
accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance 
the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its 
other accidents are in this sacrament. 



294 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 76. Art. 4 

Reply Ohj. i . The manner of being of every thing is deter- 
mined by what belongs to it of itself, and not according to 
what is coupled accidentally with it : thus an object is present 
to the sight, according as it is white, and not according as 
it is sweet, although the same object may be both white 
and sweet; hence sweetness is in the sight after the manner of 
whiteness, and not after that of sweetness. Since, then, the 
substance of Christ's body is present on the altar by the 
power of this sacrament, while its dimensive quantity is 
there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, therefore 
the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this sacrament, 
not according to its proper manner (namely, that the whole 
is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), 
but after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the 
whole to be in the whole, and the whole in every part. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Two dimensive quantities cannot naturally 
be in the same subject at the same time, so that each be 
there according to the proper manner of dimensive quantity. 
But in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread 
is there after its proper manner, that is, according to com- 
mensuration: not so the dimensive quantity of Christ's body, 
for that is there after the manner of substance, as stated 
above [ad i). 

Reply Ohj. 3. The dimensive quantity of Christ's body 
is in this sacrament not by way of commensuration, which 
is proper to quantity, and to which it belongs for the greater 
to be extended beyond the lesser ; but in the way mentioned 
above [ad i, 2). 

Fifth Article. 
WHETHER Christ's body is in this sacrament as in 

A PLACE ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that Christ's body is in this sacra- 
ment as in a place. Because, to be in a place definitively or 
circumscriptively belongs to being in a place. But Christ's 
body seems to be definitively in this sacrament, because it 
is so present where the species of the bread and wine are. 



HOW CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT 295 

that it is nowhere else upon the altar : likewise it seems to be 
there circumscriptively, because it is so contained under 
the species of the consecrated host, that it neither exceeds 
it nor is exceeded by it. Therefore Christ's body is in this 
sacrament as in a place. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the place of the bread and wine is not 
empty, because nature abhors a vacuum; nor is the sub- 
stance of the bread there, as stated above (Q. LXXV., A. 2) ; 
but only the body of Christ is there. Consequently the 
body of Christ fills that place. But whatever fills a place 
is there locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in this 
sacrament locally. 

Ohj. 3. Further, as stated above (A. 4), the body of Christ 
is in this sacrament with its dimensive quantity, and with 
all its accidents. But to be in a place is an accident of a 
body; hence where is numbered among the nine kinds of 
accidents. Therefore Christ's body is in this sacrament 
locally. 

On the contrary, The place and the object placed must 
be equal, as is clear from the Philosopher {Phys. iv.). But 
the place, where this sacrament is, is much less than the 
body of Christ. Therefore Christ's body is not in this sacra- 
ment as in a place. 

I answer that, As stated above (A. i (^^ 3; A. 3), Christ's 
body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of 
dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of sub- 
stance. But every body occupying a place is in the place 
according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, 
inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according 
to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's 
body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the 
manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which 
substance is contained by dimensions; because the sub- 
stance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in 
this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not 
locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of sub- 
stance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Never- 
theless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject ot 



^9^ THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 76. Art. 5 

those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and 
therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by 
reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that 
place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the 
substance of Christ's body is compared with that place 
through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the 
contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are com- 
pared with that place through the medium of substance; 
which is contrary to the notion of a located body. 

Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacra- 
ment. 

Reply Ohj. i. Christ's body is not in this sacrament 
definitively, because then it would be only on the par- 
ticular altar where this sacrament is performed; whereas 
it is in heaven under its own species, and on many 
other altars under the sacramental species. Likewise it is 
evident that it is not in this sacrament circumscriptively, 
because it is not there according to the commensuration of 
its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is not out- 
side the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other 
part of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively 
or circumscriptively, but to its being there by consecration 
and conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above 
(A. i;Q. LXXV.,A. 2S^^.). 

Reply Ohj. 2. The place in which Christ's body is, is not 
empty; nor yet is it properly filled with the substance of 
Christ's body, which is not there locally, as stated above; 
but it is filled with the sacramental species, which have to 
fill the place either because of the nature of dimensions, or 
at least miraculously, as they also subsist miraculously after 
the fashion of substance. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As stated above (A. 4), the accidents of 
Christ's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance. 
And therefore those accidents of Christ's body which are 
intrinsic to it are in this sacrament. But to be in a place 
is an accident when compared with the extrinsic con- 
tainer. And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to be in 
this sacrament as in a place. 



HOW CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT 297 



Sixth Article. 
WHETHER Christ's body is in this sacrament movably ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 
Objection i. It seems that Christ's body is movably in 
this sacrament, because the Philosopher says {Topic, ii.) that 
when we are moved, the things within us are moved : and this is 
true even of the soul's spiritual substance. But Christ is 
in this sacrament, as shown above (Q. LXXIV., A. i) . There- 
fore He is moved when it is moved. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the truth ought to correspond with the 
figure. But, according to the commandment (Exod. xii. 10), 
concerning the Paschal Lamb, a figure of this sacrament, 
there remained nothing until the morning. Neither, therefore, 
if this sacrament be reserved until morning, will Christ's 
body be there; and so it is not immovably in this sacrament. 
Ohj. 3. Further, if Christ's body were to remain under 
this sacrament even until the morrow, for the same reason 
it will remain there during all coming time; for it cannot 
be said that it ceases to be there when the species pass, 
because the existence of Christ's body is not dependent 
on those species. Yet Christ does not remain in this sacra- 
ment for all coming time. It seems, then, that straightway 
on the morrow, or after a short time, He ceases to be under 
this sacrament. And so it seems that Christ is in this 
sacrament movably. 

On the contrary, It is impossible for the same thing to 
be in motion and at rest, else contradictories would be 
verified of the same subject. But Christ's body is at rest 
in heaven. Therefore it is not movably in this sacrament. 
/ answer that. When any thing is one, as to subject, and 
manifold in being, there is nothing to hinder it from being 
moved in one respect, and yet to remain at rest in another 
just as it is one thing for a body to be white, and another 
thing, to be large; hence it can be moved as to its whiteness, 
and yet continue unmoved as to its magnitude. But in 
Christ, being in Himself and being under the sacrament are 



298 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 76. Art. 6 

not the same thing, because when we say that He is under 
this sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this 
sacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is not 
moved locally of Himself, but only accidentally, because 
Christ is not in this sacrament as in a place, as stated above 
(A. 5). But what is not in a place, is not moved of itself 
locally, but only according to the motion of the subject 
in which it is. 

In the same way neither is it moved of itself according 
to the being which it has in this sacrament, by any other 
change whatever, as for instance, that it ceases to be under 
this sacrament: because whatever possesses unfailing 
existence of itself, cannot be the principle of failing; but 
when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; just as 
God, Whose existence is unfailing and immortal, ceases jto 
be in some corruptible creature because such corruptible 
creature ceases to exist. And in this way, since Christ 
has unfailing and incorruptible being. He ceases to be 
under this sacrament, not because He ceases to be, nor 
yet by local movement of His own, as is clear from what 
has been said, but only by the fact that the sacramental 
species cease to exist. 

Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking, is im- 
movably in this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. i. This argument deals with accidental move- 
ment, whereby things within us are moved together with 
us. But with things which can of themselves be in a place, 
like bodies, it is otherwise than with things which cannot 
of themselves be in a place, such as forms and spiritual 
substances. And to this mode can be reduced what we 
say of Christ, being moved accidentally, according to the 
existence which He has in this sacrament, in which He is not 
present as in a place. 

Reply Ohj. 2. It was this argument which seems to have 
convinced those who held that Christ's body does not remain 
under this sacrament if it be reserved until the morrow. It 
is against these that Cyril says {Ep. Ixxxiii.) : Some are so 
foolish as to say that the mystical blessing departs from the 



HOW CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT 299 

sacrament, if any of its fragments remain until the next day : 
for Christ's consecrated body is not changed, and the power 
of the blessing, and the life-giving grace is perpetually in it. 
Thus are all other consecrations irremovable so long as 
the consecrated things endure; on which account they 
are not repeated. — And although the truth corresponds 
with the figure, still the figure cannot equal it. 

Reply Obj. 3. The body of Christ remains in this sacra- 
ment not only until the morrow, but also in the future, so 
long as the sacramental species remain: and when they 
cease, Christ's body ceases to be under them, not because 
it depends on them, but because the relationship of Christ's 
body to those species is taken away, in the same way as God 
ceases to be the Lord of a creature which ceases to exist. 



Seventh Article. 

whether the body of christ, as it is in this sacrament, 
can be seen by any eye, at least by a glorified 

ONE ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the body of Christ, as it is in 
this sacrament, can be seen by the eye, at least by a glori- 
fied one. For our eyes are hindered from beholding Christ's 
body in this sacrament, on account of the sacramental 
species veiling it. But the glorified eye cannot be hindered 
by anything from seeing bodies as they are. Therefore, 
the glorified eye can see Christ's body as it is in this sacra- 
ment. 

Obj. 2. Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be 
made like to the body of Christ's glory, according to Phil, 
iii. 21. But Christ's eye beholds Himself as He is in this 
sacrament. Therefore, for the same reason, every other 
glorified eye can see Him. 

Obj. 3. Further, in the resurrection the saints will be 
equal to the angels, according to Luke xx. 36. But the 
angels see the body of Christ as it is in this sacrament, for 
even the devils are found to pay reverence thereto, and to 



300 THE '* SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 76. Art. 7 

fear it. Therefore, for like reason, the glorified eye can 
see Christ as He is in this sacrament. 

On the contrary, As long as a thing remains the same, it 
cannot at the same time be seen by the same eye under diverse 
species. But the glorified eye sees Christ always, as He is in 
His own species, according to Isa. xxxiii. 17: {His eyes) 
shall see the king in his beauty. It seems, then, that it does 
not see Christ, as He is under the species of this sacrament. 

/ answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily 
* eye properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by 
simihtude. But Christ's body as it is in this sacrament 
' cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a 
body which is visible brings about an alteration in the 
medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of 
Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the sub- 
stance; so that the accidents of Christ's body have no 
immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adja- 
cent bodies ; consequently they do not act on the medium 
so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because, as 
stated above (A. i <3;i 3; A. 3), Christ's body is substantially 
present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not 
visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of 
the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the 
intellect, whose object is what a thing is {De Anima iii.). 

And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's body, according 
to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is per- 
ceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but 
only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye. 

Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. 
For since the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is 
entirely supernatural, it is visible in itself to a supernatural, 
i.e., the Divine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified 
intellect, of angel or of man, which, through the par- 
ticipated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all supernatural 
things in the vision of the Divine Essence. But it can 
be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like other 
supernatural things. And not even the angelic intellect of 
its own natural power is capable of beholding it; conse- 



HOW CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT 301 

quently the devils cannot by their intellect perceive Christ 
in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do 
not pay willing assent; yet they are convinced of it from 
the evidence of signs, according to James ii. 19: The devils 
believe, and tremble. 

Refly Obj. i. Our bodily eye, on account of the sacra- 
mental species, is hindered from beholding the body of 
Christ underlying them, not merely as by way of veil (just 
as we are hindered from seeing what is covered with an^^ 
corporeal veil), but also because Christ's body bears a 
relation to the medium surrounding this sacrament, not 
through its own accidents, but through the sacramental 
species. 

Reply Obj. 2. Christ's own bodily eye sees Himself exist- 
ing under the sacrament, yet it cannot see the way in 
which it exists under the sacrament, because that belongs 
to the intellect. But it is not the same with any other 
glorified eye, because Christ's eye is under this sacrament, 
in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it. 

Reply Obj. 3. No angel, good or bad, can see anything 
with a bodily eye, but only with the mental eye. Hence 
there is no parallel reason, as is evident from what was said 
above. 

Eighth Article. 

WHETHER Christ's body is truly there, when flesh or 
A child appears miraculously in this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that Christ's body is not truly there 
when flesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacra- 
ment. Because His body ceases to be under this sacrament 
when the sacramental species cease to be present, as stated 
above (A. 6). But when flesh or a child appears, the sacra- 
mental species cease to be present. Therefore Christ's 
body is not truly there. 

Obj. 2. Further, wherever Christ's body is, it is there either 
under its own species, or under those of the sacrament. But 
when such apparitions occur, it is evident that Christ is 



302 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " q. 76. Art. 8 

not present under His own species, because the entire Christ 
is contained in this sacrament, and He remains entire under 
the form in which He ascended to heaven : yet what appears 
miraculously in this sacrament is sometimes seen as a small 
particle of flesh, or at times as a small child. Now it is 
evident that He is not there under the sacramental species, 
which is that of bread or wine. Consequently, it seems that 
Christ's body is not there in any way. 

Obj. 3. Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacra- 
ment by consecration and conversion, as was said above 
(Q. LXXV., AA. 2, 3, 4). But the flesh and blood which 
appear by miracle are not consecrated, nor are they con- 
verted into Christ's true body and blood. Therefore the 
body or the blood of Christ is not under those species. 

On the contrary, When such apparition takes place, the 
same reverence is shown to it as was shown at first, which 
would not be done if Christ were not truly there, to Whom 
we show reverence of latria. Therefore, when such appari- 
tion occurs, Christ is under the sacrament. 

/ answer that, Such apparition comes about in two ways, 
when occasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a 
child, is seen. Sometimes it happens on the part of 
the beholders, whose eyes are so affected as if they out- 
wardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while no change takes 
place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when 
to one person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, 
while to others it is seen as before under the species of bread ; 
or when to the same individual it appears for an hour under 
the appearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the 
appearance of bread. Nor is there any deception there, as 
occurs in the feats of magicians, because such species is 
divinely formed in the eye in order to represent some truth, 
namely, for the purpose of showing that Christ's body is 
truly under this sacrament; just as Christ without decep- 
tion appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus. 
For Augustine says [De Qq. Evang. ii.) that when our pre- 
tence is referred to some significance, it is not a lie, but a 
figure of the truth. And since in this way no change is 



HOW CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT 303 

made in the sacrament, it is manifest that, when such 
apparition occurs, Christ does not cease to be under this 
sacrament. 

But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes 
about not merely by a change wrought in the beholders, 
but by an appearance which really exists outwardly. And 
this indeed is seen to happen when it is beheld by every- 
one under such an appearance, and it remains so not for 
an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some 
think that it is the proper species of Christ's body. Nor does 
it matter that sometimes Christ's entire body is not seen 
there, but part of His flesh, or else that it is not seen in 
youthful guise, but in the semblance of a child, because 
it lies within the power of a glorified body for it to be seen 
by a non-glorified eye either entirely or in part, and under 
its own semblance or in strange guise, as will be said later 
(Suppl. Q. LXXXV., AA. 2, 3). 

But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's 
body under its proper species can be seen only in one place, 
wherein it is definitively contained. Hence since it is seen 
in its proper species, and is adored in heaven, it is not seen 
under its proper species in this sacrament. Secondly, be- 
cause a glorified body, which appears at will, disappears 
when it wills after the apparition; thus it is related (Luke 
xxiv. 31) that Our Lord vanished out of sight of the disciples. 
But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this 
sacrament, continues for a long time ; indeed, one reads of 
its being sometimes enclosed, and, by order of man}^ bishops, 
preserved in a pyx, which it would be wicked to think of 
Christ under His proper semblance. 

Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the 
dimensions remain the same as before, there is a miraculous 
change wrought in the other accidents, such as shape, colour, 
and the rest, so that flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, 
as was said already, this is not deception, because it is done 
to represent the truth, namely, to show by this miraculous 
apparition that Christ's body and blood are truly in this 
sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the dimensions 



304 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 76. Art. 8 

remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, 
as we shall see later on (Q. LXXVIL, A. 2), the body of 
Christ truly remains in this sacrament. 

Reply Obj. i. When such apparition takes place, the 
sacramental species sometimes continue entire in them- 
selves; and sometimes only as to that which is principal, 
as was said above. 

Reply Obj. 2. As stated above, during such apparitions 
Christ's proper semblance is not seen, but a species miracu- 
lously formed either in the eyes of the beholders, or in the 
sacramental dimensions themselves, as was said above. 

Reply Obj. 3. The dimensions of the consecrated bread 
and wine continue, while a miraculous change is wrought 
in the other accidents, as stated above. 



OUESTION LXXVII. 

OF THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS 
SACRAMENT. 

[In Eight Articles) 

We must now consider the accidents which remain in this 
sacrament ; under which head there are eight points of inquiry, 
(i) Whether the accidents which remain are without a 
subject ? (2) Whether dimensive quantity is the subject 
of the other accidents ? (3) Whether such accidents can 
affect an extrinsic body ? (4) Whether they can be cor- 
rupted ? (5) Whether anything can be generated from 
them ? (6) Whether they can nourish ? (7) Of the break- 
ing of the consecrated bread. (8) Whether anything can be 
mixed with the consecrated wine ? 

First Article, 
whether the accidents remain in this sacrament 

without a subject ? 

We 'proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection 1. It seems that the accidents do not remain in 
this sacrament without a subject, because there ought not 
to be anything disorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of 
truth. But for accidents to be without a subject is con- 
trary to the order which God established in nature; and 
furthermore it seems to savour of deceit, since accidents 
are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject. There- 
fore the accidents are not without a subject in this sacra- 
ment. 

Obj. 2. Further, not even by miracle can the definition 

III. 3 305 20 



3o6 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 77. Art. i 

of a thing be severed from it, or the definition of another 
thing be apphed to it ; for instance, that, while man remains a 
man, he can be an irrational animal. For it would follow 
that contradictories can exist at the one time: for the 
definition of a thing is what its name expresses, as is said in 
Metaph. iv. But it belongs to the definition of an accident 
for it to be in a subject, while the definition of substance is 
that it must subsist of itself, and not in another. There- 
fore it cannot come to pass, even by miracle, that the 
accidents exist without a. subject in this sacrament, 

Obj. 3. Further, an accident is individuated by its sub- 
ject. If therefore the accidents remain in this sacrament 
without a subject, they will not be individual, but general, 
which is clearly false, because thus they would not be 
sensible, but merely intelligible. 

Obj. 4. Further, the accidents after the consecration of 
this sacrament do not obtain any composition. But before 
the consecration they were not composed either of matter 
and form, nor of existence {quo est) and essence {quod est). 
Therefore, even after consecration, they are not composite in 
either of these ways. But this is unreasonable, for thus they 
would be simpler than angels, whereas at the same time these 
accidents are perceptible to the senses. Therefore, in this 
sacrament the accidents do not remain without a subject. 

On the contrary, Gregory says in an Easter Homily 
(Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx.) that the sacramental 
species are the names of those things which were there before, 
namely, of the bread and wine. Therefore since the sub- 
stance of the bread and the wine does not remain, it seems 
that these species remain without a subject. 

/ answer that. The species of the bread and wine, which are 
perceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after 
consecration, are not subjected in the substance of the 
bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above 
(Q. LXXV., A. 2) ; nor in the substantial form, for that does 
not remain {ibid., A. 6), and if it did remain, it could not 
be a subject, as Boethius declares {De Trin. i.). Further- 
more it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected 



HOW THE ACCIDENTS REMAIN 307 

in the substance of Christ's body and blood, because the. 
substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected 
by such accidents ; nor is it possible for Christ's glorious and 
impassible body to be altered so as to receive these qualities. 

Now there are some who say that they are in the sur- 
rounding atmosphere as in a subject. But even this can- 
not be : in the first place, because atmosphere is not suscep- 
tive of such accidents. Secondly, because these accidents 
are not where the atmosphere is, nay more, the atmosphere 
is displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, be- 
cause accidents do not pass from subject to subject, so 
that the same identical accident which was first in one 
subject be afterwards in another; because an accident is 
individuated by the subject; hence it cannot come to pass 
for an accident remaining identically the same to be at one 
time in one subject, and at another time in another. 
Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not deprived of its own 
accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents 
and others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that 
this is done miraculously in virtue of the consecration, be- 
cause the words of consecration do not signify this, and 
they effect only what they signify. 

Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this 
sacrament without a subject. This can be done by Divine 
power ; for since an effect depends more upon the first cause 
than on the second, God Who is the first cause both of 
substance and accident, can by His unlimited power preserve 
an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn 
whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, 
just as without natural causes He can produce other effects 
of natural causes, even as He formed a human body in the 
Virgin's womb, without the seed of man {Hymn for Christmas, 
First Vespers). 

Reply Ohj. i. There is nothing to hinder the common 
law of nature from ordaining a thing, the contrary of 
which is nevertheless ordained by a special privilege of 
grace, as is evident in the raising of the dead, and in the 
restoring of sight to the blind: even thus in human affairs, 



3o8 THE ''SUMMA THEOLOGICA'' Q.77.ART.1 

to some individuals some things are granted by special 
privilege which are outside the common law. And so, 
even though it be according to the common law of nature 
for an accident to be in a subject, still for a special reason, 
according to the order of grace, the accidents exist in this 
sacrament without a subject, on account of the reasons given 
above(Q. LXXV., A. 5). 

Reply Ohj. 2. Since being is not a genus, then being can- 
not be of itself the essence of either substance or accident. 
Consequently, the definition of substance is not — a being 
of itself without a subject, nor is the definition of accident — 
a being in a subject ; but it belongs to the quiddity or essence 
of substance to have existence not in a subject ; while it 
belongs to the quiddity or essence of accident to have exist- 
ence in a subject. But in this sacrament it is not in virtue 
of their essence that accidents are not in a subject, 
but through the Divine power sustaining them ; and 
consequently they do not cease to be accidents, because 
neither is the definition of accident withdrawn from them, 
nor does the definition of substance apply to them. 

Reply Obj. 3. These accidents acquired individual being 
in the substance of the bread and wine ; and when this sub- 
stance is changed into the body and blood of Christ, they 
remain in that individuated being which they possessed 
before, hence they are individual and sensible. 

Reply Obj. 4. These accidents had no being of their 
own nor other accidents, so long as the substance of the 
bread and wine remained ; but their subjects had such being 
through them, just as snow is white through whiteness. 
But after the consecration the accidents which remain have 
being ; hence they are compounded of existence and essence, 
as was said of the angels, in the First Part (Q. L., A. 2 ad 3) ; 
and besides they have composition of quantitative parts. 



HOW THE ACCIDENTS REMAIN 309 

Second Article. 

whether in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of 
the bread or wine is the subject of the other 
accidents ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that in this sacrament the dimen- 
sive quantity of the bread or wine is not the subject of the 
other accidents. For accident is not the subject of accident ; 
because no form can be a subject, since to be a subject is a 
property of matter. But dimensive quantity is an accident. 
Therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the subject of the 
other accidents. 

Ohj. 2. Further, just as quantity is individuated by 
substance, so also are the other accidents. If, then, the 
dimensive quantity of the bread or wine remains individu- 
ated according to the being it had before, in which it is 
preserved, for hke reason the other accidents remain in- 
dividuated according to the existence which they had before 
in the substance. Therefore they are not in dimensive 
quantity as in a subject, since every accident is individuated 
by its own subject. 

Ohj. 3. Further, among the other accidents that remain, 
of the bread and wine, the senses perceive also rarity and 
density, which cannot be in dimensive quantity existing 
outside matter; because a thing is rare which has little 
matter under great dimensions; while a thing is dense 
which has much matter under small dimensions, as is said 
in Phys. iv. It does not seem, then, that dimensive quan 
tity can be the subject of the accidents which remain in this 
sacrament. 

Ohj. 4. Further, quantity abstract from matter seems to 
be mathematical quantity, which is not the subject of 
sensible qualities. Since, then, the remaining accidents in 
this sacrament are sensible, it seems that in this sacrament 
they cannot be subjected in the dimensive quantity of the 
bread and wine that remains after consecration. 



310 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 77. Art. 2 

On the contrary, Qualities are divisible only accidentally, 
that is, by reason of the subject. But the qualities remain- 
ing in this sacrament are divided by the division of dimen- 
sive quantity, as is evident through our senses. Therefore, 
dimensive quantity is the subject of the accidents which 
remain in this sacrament. 

I answer that, It is necessary to say that the other acci- 
dents which remain in this sacrament are subjected in the 
dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains: 
first of all, because something having quantity and colour 
and affected by other accidents is perceived by the senses; 
nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, because the first 
disposition of matter is dimensive quantity, hence Plato 
also assigned great and small as the first differences of 
matter (Aristotle, Metaph. iv.). And because the first 
subject is matter, the consequence is that all other accidents 
are related to their subject through the medium of dimen- 
sive quantity; just as the first subject of colour is said to be 
the surface, on which account some have maintained that 
dimensions are the substances of bodies, as is said in 
Metaph. iii. And since, when the subject is withdrawn, 
the accidents remain according to the being which they 
had before, it follows that all accidents remain founded upon 
dimensive quantity. 

Thirdly, because, since the subject is the principle of 
individuation of the accidents, it is necessary for what is 
admitted as the subject of some accidents to be somehow 
the principle of individuation: for it is of the very notion 
of an individual that it cannot be in several; and this 
happens in two ways. First, because it is not natural to it 
to be in any one; and in this way immaterial separated 
forms, subsisting of themselves, are also individuals of 
themselves. Secondly, because a form, be it substantial 
or accidental, is naturally in someone indeed, not in several, 
as this whiteness, which is in this body. As to the first, 
matter is the principle of individuation of all inherent 
forms, because, since these forms, considered in themselves, 
are naturally in something as in a subject, from the very 



HOW THE ACCIDENTS REMAIN 311 

fact that one of them is received in matter, which is not in, 
another, it follows that neither can the form itself thus 
existing be in another. As to the second, it must be 
maintained that the principle of individuation is dimensive 
quantity. For that something is naturally in another one 
solely, is due to the fact that that other is undivided in itself, 
and distinct from all others. But it is on account of quan- 
tity that substance can be divided, as is said in Phys. i. 
And therefore dimensive quantity itself is a particular 
principle of individuation in forms of this kind, namely, in- 
asmuch as forms numerically distinct are in different parts 
of the matter. Hence also dimensive quantity has of itself 
a kind of individuation, so that we can imagine several 
lines of the same species, differing in position, which is in- 
cluded in the notion of this quantity; for it belongs to 
dimension for it to be quantity having position (Aristotle, — 
Categ. iv.), and therefore dimensive quantity can be the 
subject of the other accidents, rather than the other way 
about. 

Reply Ohj. i. One accident cannot of itself be the subject 
of another, because it does not exist of itself. But inasmuch 
as an accident is received in another thing, one is said to be 
the subject of the other, inasmuch as one is received in a 
subject through another, as the surface is said to be the 
subject of colour. Hence when God makes an accident 
to exist of itself, it can also be of itself the subject of 
another. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The other accidents, even as they were in 
the substance of the bread, were individuated by means 
of dimensive quantity, as stated above. And therefore 
dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents 
remaining in this sacrament, rather than conversely. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Rarity and density are particular qualities 
accompanying bodies, by reason of their ha\dng much or 
little matter under dimensions; just as all other accidents 
likewise follow from the principles of substance. And 
consequently, as the accidents are preserved by Divine 
power when the substance is withdrawn, so, when matter 



312 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 77. Art. 2 

is withdrawn, the quahties which go mth matter, such as 
rarity and density, are preserved by Divine power. 

Reply Obj. 4. Mathematical quantity abstracts not 
from intelhgible matter, but from sensible matter, as 
is said in Metaph. vii. But matter is termed sensible 
because it underlies sensible qualities. And therefore it is 
manifest that the dimensive quantity, which remains in 
this sacrament without a subject, is not mathematical 
quantity. 

Third Article. 

whether the species remaining in this sacrament can 
change external objects ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the species which remain in 
this sacrament cannot affect external objects. For it is 
proved in Phys. vii. that forms which are in matter are 
produced by forms that are in matter, but not from forms 
which are without matter, because like makes like. But 
the sacramental species are species without matter, since 
they remain without a subject, as is evident from what was 
said above (A. i). Therefore they cannot affect other 
matter by producing any form in it. 

Obj. 2. Further, when the action of the principal agent 
ceases, then the action of the instrument must cease, as 
when the carpenter rests, the hammer is moved no longer. 
But all accidental forms act instrumentally in virtue of the 
substantial form as the principal agent. Therefore, since 
the substantial form of the bread and wine does not remain 
in this sacrament, as was shown above (Q. LXXV., A. 6), 
it seems that the accidental forms which remain cannot act 
so as to change external matter. 

Obj. 3. Further, nothing acts outside its species, because 
an effect cannot surpass its cause. But all the sacramental 
species are accidents. Therefore they cannot change 
external matter, at least as to a substantial form. 

On the contrary, If they could not change external bodies^ 



HOW THE ACCIDENTS REMAIN 3i3 

they could not be felt; for a thing is felt from the senses 
being changed by a sensible thing, as is said in De Anima ii. 

/ answer that, Because everything acts in so far as it is 
an actual being, the consequence is that everything stands 
in the same relation to action as it does to being. There- 
fore, because, according to what was said above (A. i), it 
is an effect of the Divine power that the sacramental species 
continue in the being which they had when the substance 
of the bread and wine was present, it follows that the}^ 
continue in their action. Consequently they retain every 
action which they had while the substance of the bread 
and wine remained, now that the substance of the bread 
and wine has passed into the body and blood of Christ. 
Hence there is no doubt but that they can change external 
bodies. 

Reply Ohj. i. The sacramental species, although they are 
forms existing without matter, still retain the same being 
which thev had before in matter, and therefore as to their 
being they are like forms which are in matter. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The action of an accidental form depends 
upon the action of a substantial form in the same way as 
the being of accident depends upon the being of substance; 
and therefore, as it is an effect of Divine power that the 
sacramental species exist without substance, so is it an effect 
of Divine power that they can act without a substantial 
form, because every action of a substantial or accidental 
form depends upon God as the first agent. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The change which terminates in a sub- 
stantial form is not effected by a substantial form directly, 
but by means of the active and passive qualities, which act 
in virtue of the substantial form. But by Divine power 
this instrumental energy is retained in the sacramental 
species, just as it was before: and consequently their action 
can be directed to a substantial form instrumentally, just 
in the same way as anything can act outside its species, not 
as by its own power, but by the power of the chief agent. 



314 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. -jj. Art. 4 



Fourth Article. 

whether the sacramental species can be 
corrupted ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the sacramental species cannot 
be corrupted, because corruption comes of the separation 
of the form from the matter. But the matter of the bread 
does not remain in this sacrament, as is clear from what was 
said above (Q. LXXV., A. 2). Therefore these species 
cannot be corrupted. 

Ohj. 2. Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally, 
that is, when its subject is corrupted; hence self-subsisting 
forms are incorruptible, as is seen in spiritual substances. 
But the sacramental species are forms without a subject. 
Therefore they cannot be corrupted. 

Ohj. 3. Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be 
naturally or miraculously. But they cannot be corrupted 
naturally, because no subject of corruption can be assigned 
as remaining after the corruption has taken place. Neither 
can they be corrupted miraculously, because the miracles 
which occur in this sacrament take place in virtue of the 
consecration, whereby the sacramental species are preserved : 
and the same thing is not the cause of preservation and of 
corruption. Therefore, in no way can the sacramental 
species be corrupted. 

On the contrary, We perceive by our senses that the con- 
secrated hosts become putrefied and corrupted. 
^ / answer that, Corruption is movement from being into non- 
being (Aristotle, Phys. v.). Now it has been stated (A. 3) 
that the sacramental species retain the same being as they 
had before when the substance of the bread was present. 
Consequently, as the being of those accidents could be 
corrupted while the substance of the bread and wine was 
present, so likewise they can be corrupted now that the 
\substance has passed away. 

But such accidents could have been previously corrupted 



HOW THE ACCIDENTS REMAIN 315 

in two ways: in one way, of themselves; in another way, 
accidentally. They could be corrupted of themselves, as 
by alteration of the qualities, and increase or decrease of the 
quantity, not in the w^ay in which increase or decrease is 
found only in animated bodies, such as the substances of 
the bread and wine are not, but by addition or division; 
for, as is said in Metafh. iii., one dimension is dissolved by 
division, and two dimensions result; while on the contrary, 
]Dy addition, two dimensions become one. And in this way 
such accidents can be corrupted manifestly after consecra- 
tion, because the dimensive quantity which remains can 
receive division and addition; and since it is the subject of 
sensible qualities, as stated above (A. i),it can likewise be 
the subject of their alteration, for instance, if the colour 
or the savour of the bread or wine be altered. 

An accident can be corrupted in another way, through 
the corruption of its subject, and in this way also they 
can be corrupted after consecration; for although the subject 
does not remain, stiU the being which they had in the 
subject does remain, which being is proper, and suited to 
the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by 
a contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine 
was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not cor- 
rupted except by a preceding alteration regarding the 
accidents. 

Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each 
of the aforesaid corruptions; because, when the body and 
the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the sub- 
stance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on 
the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the 
corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood 
of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account 
of such change, whether the change be on the part of the 
quality, as for instance, when the colour or the savour of 
the bread or wine is slightly modified ; or on the part of the 
quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such 
parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. 
But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread » 



3i6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 77. Art. 4 

or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and 
blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either 
on the part of the qualities, as when the colour, savour, and 
other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to 
be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or 
else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread 
be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such 
tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer 
remain. 

Reply Ohj. i. Since it belongs essentially to corruption 
to take away the being of a thing, in so far as the being of 
some form is in matter, it results that by corruption the 
form is separated from the matter. But if such being were 
not in matter, yet like such being as is in matter, it could 
be taken away by corruption, even where there is no matter ; 
as takes place in this sacrament, as is evident from what 
was said above. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Although the sacramental species are forms 
not in matter, yet they have the being which they had in 
matter. 

Reply Ohj. 3. This corruption of species is not miraculous, 
but natural; nevertheless, it presupposes the miracle which 
is wrought in the consecration, namely, that those sacra- 
mental species retain without a subject, the same being 
as they had in a subject; just as a blind man, to whom sight 
is given miraculously, sees naturally. 

Fifth Article. 

whether anything can be generated from the 
sacramental species ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Ohjecfion i. It seems that nothing can be generated from 
the sacramental species: because, whatever is generated, 
is generated out of some matter: for nothing is generated 
out of nothing, although by creation something is made out 
of nothing. But there is no matter underlying the sacra- 
mental species except that of Christ's body, and that body 



HOW THE ACCIDENTS REMAIN 317 

is incorruptible. Therefore it seems that nothing can be 
generated from the sacramental species. 

Obj. 2. Fm'ther, things which are not of the same genus 
cannot spring from one another: thus a line is not made of 
whiteness. But accident and substance differ generically. 
Therefore, since the sacramental species are accidents, it 
seems that no substance can be generated from them. 

Obj. 3. Further, if any corporeal substance be generated 
from them, such substance will not be without accident. 
Therefore, if any corporeal substance be generated from the 
sacramental species, then substance and accident would be 
generated from accident, namely, two things from one, which 
is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible for any corporeal 
substance to be generated out of the sacramental species. 

On the contrary, The senses are witness that something is 
generated out of the sacramental species, either ashes, if they 
be burnt, worms if they putrefy, or dust if they be crushed. 

/ answer that, Since the corruption of one thing is the 
generation of another {De Gener. i.), something must be 
generated necessarily from the sacramental species if they 
be corrupted, as stated above (A. 4) ; for they are not 
corrupted in such a way that they disappear altogether, as 
if reduced to nothing; on the contrary, something sensible 
manifestly succeeds to them. 

Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything can be 
generated from them. For it is quite evident that nothing 
is generated out of the body and blood of Christ which are 
truly there, because these are incorruptible. But if the 
substance, or even the matter, of the bread and wine were 
to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have maintained, 
it would be easy to account for this sensible object which 
succeeds to them. But that supposition is false, as was 
stated above (Q. LXXV., AA. 2, 4, 8). 

Hence it is that others have said that the things generated 
have not sprung from the sacramental species, but from 
the surrounding atmosphere. But this can be shown in 
many ways to be impossible. In the first place, because 
when a thing is generated from another, the latter at first 



3i8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 77. Art. 5 

appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration or 
corruption appeared previously in the adjacent atmosphere; 
hence the worms or ashes are not generated therefrom. — 
Secondly, because the nature of the atmosphere is not such 
as to permit of such things being generated by such altera- 
tions. — Thirdly, because it is possible for many consecrated 
hosts to be burnt or putrefied; nor would it be possible for 
an earthen body, large enough to be generated from the 
atmosphere, unless a great and, in fact, exceedingly sensible 
condensation of the atmosphere took place. — Fourthly, 
because the same thing can happen to the solid bodies sur- 
rounding them, such as iron or stone, which remain entire 
after the generation of the aforesaid things. Hence this 
opinion cannot stand, because it is opposed to what is 
manifest to our senses. 

And therefore others have said that the substance of the 
bread and wine returns during the corruption of the species, 
and so from the returning substance of the bread and wine, 
ashes or worms or something of the kind are generated. — 
But this explanation seems an impossible one. First of all, 
because if the substance of the bread and wine be converted 
into the body and blood of Christ, as was shown above 
(Q. LXXV., AA. 2, 4), the s ubstaa cajiLtheJ brea d and wine 
cannot return, except the body and blood of Christ be again 
changed~back into the substance of bread and wine, which 
is impossible: thus if air be turned into fire, the air cannot 
return without the lire being again changed into air. But 
if the substance of bread or wine be annihilated, it cannot 
return again, because what lapses into nothing does not 
return numerically the same. Unless perchance it be said 
that the said substance returns, because God creates anew 
another new substance to replace the first.- — Secondly, this 
seems to be impossible, because no time can be assigned 
when the substance of the bread returns. For, from what 
was said above (A. 4; Q, LXXVL, A. 6 ad 3), it is evident 
that while the species of the bread and wine remain, there 
remain also the body and blood of Christ, which are not 
present together with the substance of the bread and wine 



HOW THE ACCIDENTS REMAIN 319 

in this sacrament, according to what was stated above 
(Q. LXXV., A. 2). Hence the substance of the bread and 
wine cannot return while the sacramental species remain; 
nor, again, when these species pass away; because then the 
substance of the bread and wine would be without their 
proper accidents, which is impossible. — Unless perchance 
it be said that in the last instant of the corruption of the 
species there returns (not, indeed, the substance of bread 
and wine, because it is in that very instant that they have 
the being of the substance generated from the species, but) 
the matter of bread and wine; which matter, properly 
speaking, would be more correctly described as created 
anew, than as returning. And in this sense the aforesaid 
position might be held. 

However, since it does not seem reasonable to say that 
anything takes place miraculously in this sacrament, except 
in virtue of the consecration itself, which does not imply 
either creation or return of matter, it seems better to say 
that in the actual consecration it is miraculously bestowed 
on the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine to be the 
subject of subsequent forms. Now this is proper to matter; 
and therefore as a consequence everything which goes with 
matter is bestowed on dimensive quantity; and therefore 
everything which could be generated from the matter of 
bread or wine, if it were present, can be generated from the 
aforesaid dimensive quantity of the bread or wine, not, 
indeed, by a new miracle, but by virtue of the miracle which 
has already taken place. 

Reply Ohj. i. Although no matter is there out of which 
a thing may be generated, nevertheless dimensive quantity 
supplies the place of matter, as stated above. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Those sacramental species are indeed acci- 
dents, yet they have the act and power of substance, as 
stated above (A. 3). 

Reply Ohj. 3. The dimensive quantity of the bread and 
wine retains its own nature, and receives miraculously the 
power and property of substance; and therefore it can pass 
to both, that is, into substance and dimension. 



320 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " q. 77. Art. 6 

Sixth Article. 

whether the sacramental species can nourish ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the sacramental species cannot 
nourish, because, as Ambrose says [De Sacram. v.) , it is not 
this bread that enters into our body, but the bread of everlasting 
life, which supports the substance of our soul. But whatever 
nourishes enters into the body. Therefore this bread does 
not nourish : and the same reason holds good of the wine. 

Obf. 2. Further, as is said in De Gener. ii., We are 
nourished by the very things of which we are made. But the 
sacramental species are accidents, whereas man is not made 
of accidents, because accident is not a part of substance. 
Therefore it seems that the sacramental species cannot 
nourish. 

Obj. 3. Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii.) that 
food nourishes according as it is a substance, but it gives 
increase by reason of its quantity. But the sacramental 
species are not a substance. Consequently they cannot 
nourish. 

On the contrary. The Apostle speaking of this sacrament 
says (i Cor. xi. 21) : One, indeed, is hungry, and another is 
drunk : upon which the gloss observes that he alludes to 
those who after the celebration of the sacred mystery, and after 
the consecration of the bread and wine, claimed their oblations, 
and not sharing them with others, took the whole, so as even 
to become intoxicated thereby. But this could not happen if 
the sacramental species did not nourish. Therefore the 
sacramental species do nourish. 

/ answer that. This question presents no difficulty, now 
that we have solved the preceding question. Because, as 
stated in De Anima ii., food nourishes by being converted 
into the substance of the individual nourished. Now it has 
been stated (A. 5) that the sacramental species can be 
converted into a substance generated from them. And 
they can be converted into the human body for the same 



HOW THE ACCIDENTS REMAIN 32I 

reason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, 
it is evident that they nourish. 

But the senses witness to the untruth of what some 
maintain; viz., that the species do not nourish as though 
they were changed into the human body, but merely 
refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man 
is heartened by the odour of meat, and intoxicated by the 
fumes of wine) , Because such refreshment does not suffice 
long for a man, whose body needs repair owing to constant 
waste : and yet a man could be supported for long if he were 
to take hosts and consecrated wine in great quantity. 

In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot 
stand, who hold that the sacramental species nourish 
owing to the remaining substantial form of the bread and 
wine: both because the form does not remain, as stated 
above (Q. LXXV., A. 6) : and because to nourish is the act 
not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form 
of the one nourished, while the form of the nourishment 
passes away: hence it is said in De Anima ii. that nourish- 
ment is at first unlike, but at the end is like. 

Reply Ohj. i. After the consecration bread can be said to 
be in this sacrament in two ways. First, as to the species, 
which retain the name of the previous substance, as Gregory 
says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, — De Corp. et Sang. 
Dom. XX.). Secondly, Christ's very body can be called 
bread, since it is the mystical bread coming down from 
heaven. Consequently, Ambrose uses the word bread in 
this second meaning, when he says that this bread does not 
pass into the body, because, to wit, Christ's body is not 
changed into man's body, but nourishes his soul. But he 
is not speaking of bread taken in the first acceptation. 

Reply Obj. 2. Although the sacramental species are not 
those things out of which the human body is made, yet 
they are changed into those things stated above. 

Reply Obj. 3. Although the sacramental species are not a 
substance, still they have the virtue of a substance, as stated 
above. 

III. 3 21 



322 THE « SUMMA THEOLOGICA " q. 77. Art. 7 

Seventh Article. 

whether the sacramental species are broken in 

this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 
Objection i. It seems that the sacramental species are 
not broken in this sacrament, because the Philosopher says 
in Meteor iv. that bodies are breakable owing to a certain 
disposition of the pores; a thing which cannot be attributed 
to the sacramental species. Therefore the sacramental 
species cannot be broken. 

Ohj. 2. Further, breaking is followed by sound. But the 
sacramental species emit no sound : because the Philosopher 
says {De Anima ii.), that what emits sound is a hard body, 
having a smooth surface. Therefore the sacramental species 
are not broken. 

Ohj. 3. Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of 
the same object. But it is Christ's true body that is eaten, 
according to John vi. 57 : He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh 
My blood. Therefore it is Christ's body that is- broken and 
masticated: and hence it is said in the confession of Beren- 
garius: / agree with the Holy Catholic Church, and with heart 
and lips I profess, that the bread and wine which are placed 
on the altar, are the true body and blood of Christ after consecra- 
tion, and are truly handled and broken by the priesfs hands, 
broken and crushed by the teeth of believers. Consequently, 
the breaking ought not to be ascribed to the sacramental 
species. 

On the contrary. Breaking arises from the division of that 
which has quantity. But nothing having quantity except 
the sacramental species is broken here, because neither 
Christ's body is broken, as being incorruptible, nor is the 
substance of the bread, because it no longer remains. 
Therefore the sacramental species are broken 

/ answer that, Many opinions prevailed of old on this 
matter. Some held that in this sacrament there was no 
breaking at all in reality, but merely in the eyes of the 



HOW THE ACCIDENTS REMAIN 323 

beholders. But this contention cannot stand, because in 
this sacrament of truth the sense is not deceived with regard 
to its proper object of judgment, and one of these objects 
is breaking, whereby from one thing arise many : and these 
are common sensibles, as is stated in De Anima ii. 

Others accordingly have said that there was indeed a 
genuine breaking, but without any subject. But this 
again contradicts our senses; because a quantitative body 
is seen in this sacrament, which formerly was one, and is 
now divided into many, and this must be the subject of the 
breaking. 

But it cannot be said that Christ's true body is broken. 
First of all, because it is incorruptible and impassible: 
secondly, because it is entire under every part, as was 
shown above (Q. LXXVL, A. 3), which is contrary to the 
nature of a thing broken. 

It remains, then, that the breaking is in the dimensive 
quantity of the bread, as in a subject, just as the other 
accidents. And as the sacramental species are the sacra- 
ment of Christ's true body, so is the breaking of these species 
the sacrament of our Lord's Passion, which was in Christ's 
true body. 

Reply Ohj. i. As rarity and density remain under the 
sacramental species, as stated above (A. 2 ad '^), so likewise 
porousness remains, and in consequence breakableness. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Hardness results from density; therefore, as 
density remains under the sacramental species, hardness 
remains there too, and the capability of sound as a conse- 
quence. 

Reply Ohj. 3. What is eaten under its own species, is also 
broken and masticated under its own species; but Christ's 
body is eaten not under its proper, but under the sacra- 
mental species. Hence in explaining John vi. 64, The flesh 
profiteth nothing, Augustine {Tract, xxvii. in Joan.) says 
that this is to be taken as referring to those who understood 
carnally: for they understood the flesh thus, as it is divided 
piecemeal, in a dead body, or as sold in the shamhles. Conse- 
quently, Christ's very body is not broken, except according 



324 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 77. Art. 7 

to its sacramental species. And the confession made by 
Berengarius is to be understood in this sense, that the 
breaking and the crushing with the teeth is to be referred 
to the sacramental species, under which the body of Christ 
truly is. 

Eighth Article. 

whether any liquid can be mingled with the 
consecrated wine ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that no liquid can be mingled with 
the consecrated wine, because everything mingled with 
another partakes of its quality. But no liquid can share in 
the quality of the sacramental species, because those acci- 
dents are without a subject, as stated above (A. i). There- 
fore it seems that no liquid can be mingled with the sacra- 
mental species of the wine. 

Ohj. 2. Further, if any kind of liquid be mixed with those 
species, then some one thing must be the result. But no one 
thing can result from the liquid, which is a substance, and 
the sacramental species, which are accidents; nor from the 
liquid and Christ's blood, which owing to its incorruptibilitj^ 
suffers neither increase nor decrease. Therefore no liquid 
can be mixed with the consecrated wine. 

Ohj. 3. Further, if any liquid be mixed with the conse- 
crated wine, then that also would appear to be consecrated ; 
just as water added to holy- water becomes holy. But 
the consecrated wine is truly Christ's blood. Therefore 
the liquid added would hkewise be Christ's blood otherv/ise 
than by consecration, which is unbecoming. Therefore no 
liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine. 

Ohj. 4. Further, if one of two things be entirely corrupted, 
there is no mixture {De Gener. i.). But if we mix any liquid, 
it seems that the entire species of the sacramental wine is 
corrupted, so that the blood of Christ ceases to be beneath 
it ; both because great and little are differences of quantity, 
and alter it, as white and black cause a difference of colour; 
and because the liquid mixed, as having no obstacle, seems 



HOW THE ACCIDENTS REMAIN 325 

to permeate the whole, and so Christ's blood ceases to be 
there, since it is not there with any other substance. Con- 
sequently, no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated 
wine. 

On the contrary, It is evident to our senses that another 
liquid can be mixed with the wine after it is consecrated, 
just as before. 

/ answer that, The truth of this question is evident from 
what has been said already. For it was said above (A. 3; 
A. ^ ad 2) that the species remaining in this sacrament, as 
they acquire the manner of being of substance in virtue of 
the consecration, so likewise do they obtain the mode of 
acting and of being acted upon, so that they can do or receive 
whatever their substance could do or receive, were it there 
present. But it is evident that if the substance of wine were 
there present, then some other liquid could be mingled 
with it. 

Nevertheless there would be a different effect of such 
mixing both according to the form and according to quantity 
of the liquid. For if sufficient liquid were mixed so as to 
spread itself all through the wine, then the whole would be 
a mixed substance. Now what is made up of things mixed 
is neither of them, but each passes into a third resulting from 
both: hence it would result that the former wine would 
remain no longer. But if the liquid added were of another 
species, for instance, if water were mixed, the species of the 
wine would be dissolved, and there would be a liquid of 
another species. But if liquid of the same species were 
added, for instance, wine with wine, the same species would 
remain, but the wine would not be the same numerically, 
as the diversity of the accidents shows : for instance, if one 
wine were white and the other red. 

But if the liquid added were of such minute quantity 
that it could not permeate the whole, the entire wine would 
not be mixed, but only part of it, which would not remain 
the same numerically owing to the blending of extraneous 
matter: still it would remain the same specifically^ not only 
if a little liquid of the same species were mixed with it, but 



326 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 77. Art. 8 

even if it were of another species, since a drop of water 
blended with much wine passes into the species of wine 
(De Gener. i.). 

Now it is evident that the body and blood of Christ 
abide in this sacrament so long as the species remain 
numerically the same, as stated above (A. 4; Q. LXXVL, 
A. 6 ad ^); because it is this bread and this wine which is 
consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any kind whatsoever 
added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of 
the consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the 
result will be something numerically distinct, and the blood 
of Christ will remain there no longer. But if the quantity 
of the liquid added be so slight as not to permeate through- 
out, but to reach only a part of the species, Christ's blood 
will cease to be under that part of the consecrated wine, 
yet will remain under the rest. 

Reply Obj. i. Pope Innocent HI. in a Decretal writes 
thus : The very accidents appear to affect the wine that is added, 
because, if water he added, it takes the savour of the wine. 
The result is, then, that the accidents change the subject, just 
as subject changes accidents ; for nature yields to miracle, 
and power works beyond custom. But this must not be under- 
stood as if the same identical accident, which was in the wine 
previous to consecration, is afterwards in the wine that is 
added ; but such change is the result of action ; because the 
remaining accidents of the wine retain the action of sub- 
stance, as stated above, and so they act upon the liquid 
added, by changing it. 

Reply Obj. 2. The liquid added to the consecrated wine 
is in no way mixed with the substance of Christ's blood. 
Nevertheless it is mixed with the sacramental species, yet 
so that after such mixing the aforesaid species are cor- 
rupted entirely or in part, after the way mentioned above 
(A. 5), whereby something can be generated from those 
species. And if they be entirely corrupted, there remains 
no further question, because the whole will be uniform. 
But if they be corrupted in part, there will be one dimen- 
sion according to the continuity of quantity, but not one 



HOW THE ACCIDENTS REMAIN 327 

according to the mode of being, because one part thereof 
will be without a subject while the other is in a subject; 
as in a body that is made up of two metals, there will be 
one body quantitatively, but not one as to the species of 
the matter. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As Pope Innocent says in the aforesaid 
Decretal, if after the consecration other wine he fut in the 
chalice, it is not changed into the blood, nor is it mingled with 
the blood, but, mixed with the accidents of the previous wine, 
it is diffused throughout the body which underlies them, yet 
without wetting what surrounds it. Now this is to be under- 
stood when there is not sufficient mixing of extraneous liquid 
to cause the blood of Christ to cease to be under the whole: 
because a thing is said to be diffused throughout, not because 
it touches the body of Christ according to its proper dimen- 
sions, but according to the sacramental dimensions, under 
which it is contained. Now it is not the same with holy 
water, because the blessing works no change in the substance 
of the water, as the consecration of the wine does. 

Reply Obj. 4. Some have held that however slight be the 
mixing of extraneous liquid, the substance of Christ's blood 
ceases to be under the whole, and for the reason given above 
(Ohj. 4) ; which, however, is not a cogent one; because more 
or less diversify dimensive quantity, not as to its essence, 
but as to the determination of its measure. In like manner 
the liquid added can be so small as on that account to be 
hindered from permeating the whole, and not simply by 
the dimensions ; which, although they are present without a 
subject, still they are opposed to another liquid, just as 
substance would be if it were present, according to what 
was said at the beginning of the article. 



QUESTION LXXVIII. 

OF THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT. 

{In Six Articles.) 

We must now consider the form of this sacrament; con- 
cerning which there are six points of inquiry: (i) What is 
the form of this sacrament ? (2) Whether the form for 
the consecration of the bread is appropriate ? (3) Whether 
the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate ? 
(4) Of the power of each form ? (5) Of the truth of the 
expression ? (6) Of the comparison of the one form with 
the other ? 

First Article. 

whether this is the form of this sacrament : ' this is 
my body,' and, 'this is the chalice of my blood ' ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that this is not the form of this 
sacrament : This is My body, and, This is the chalice of My 
blood. Because those words seem to belong to the form of 
this sacrament, wherewith Christ consecrated His body 
and blood. But Christ first blessed the bread which He 
took, and said afterwards : Take ye and eat ; this is My body 
(Matth. xxvi. 26). Therefore the whole of this seems to 
belong to the form of this sacrament: and the same reason 
holds good of the words which go with the consecration of 
the blood. 

Ohj. 2. Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron., — 
Ep. xxxix. : Pseudo-Isid., — Horn, iv.) says: The invisible 
Priest changes visible creatures into His own body, saying : 
' Take ye and eat; this is My body.'' Therefore, the whole 

328 



THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT 329 

of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament : and the 
same holds good of the words appertaining to the blood. 

Obj. 3. Further, in the form of Baptism both the minister 
and his act are expressed, when it is said, / baptize thee. 
But in the words set forth above there is no mention made 
either of the minister or of his act. Therefore the form of 
the sacrament is not a suitable one. 

Obj. 4. Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its 
perfection ; hence the sacrament of Baptism can be performed 
sometimes by pronouncing the words of the form only, 
omitting all the others. Therefore, if the aforesaid words 
be the form of this sacrament, it would seem as if this 
sacrament could be performed sometimes by uttering those 
words alone, while leaving out all the others which are said 
in the mass; yet this seems to be false, because, were the 
other words to be passed over, the said words would be 
taken as spoken in the person of the priest saying them, 
whereas the bread and wine are not changed into his body 
and blood. Consequently, the aforesaid words are not the 
form of this sacrament. 

On the contrary, Ambrose says {De Sacram. iv.) : The con- 
secration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the 
Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise 
is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, 
and others ; but when the time comes for perfecting the sacra- 
ment, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of 
Christ. Therefore, it is Chrisfs words that perfect this sacra- 
ment. 

I answer that. This sacrament differs from the other 
sacraments in two respects. First of all, in this, that this 
sacrament is accomplished by the consecration of the matter, 
while the rest are perfected in the use of the consecrated 
matter. Secondly, because in the other sacraments the 
consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, 
from which the matter consecrated derives instrumentally 
a spiritual power, which through the priest who is an 
animated instrument, can pass on to inanimate instru- 
ments. But in this sacrament the consecration of the 



330 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 78. Art. i 

matter consists in the miraculous change of the substance, 
which can only be done by God; hence the minister in 
performing this sacrament has no other act save the pro- 
nouncing of the words. And because the form should suit 
the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from 
the forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First, 
because the form of the other sacraments implies the use 
of the matter, as for instance, baptizing, or signing ; but the 
form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of 
the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it 
is said. This is My body, or. This is the chalice of My blood. 
Secondly, because the forms of the other sacraments are 
pronounced in the person of the minister, whether by way 
of exercising an act, as when it is said, I baptize thee, or / 
confirm thee, etc. ; or by way of command, as when it is said 
in the sacrament of Order, Take the power, etc.; or by 
way of entreaty, as when in the sacrament of Extreme 
Unction it is said, By this anointing and our intercession, 
etc. But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if 
Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be under- 
stood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this 
sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ. 

Reply Ohj. i. There are many opinions on this matter. 
Some have said that Christ, Who had power of excellence 
in the sacraments, performed this sacrament without using 
any form of words, and that afterwards He pronounced the 
words under which others were to consecrate thereafter. 
And the words of Pope Innocent III. seem to convey the 
same sense [De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv.), where he says: In good 
sooth, it can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament 
by His Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under 
which those who came after were to consecrate. But in opposi- 
tion to this view are the words of the Gospel in which it is 
said that Christ blessed, and this blessing was effected by 
certain words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are 
to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather than deter- 
mining the point. 

Others, again, have said that the blessing was effected 



THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT 331 

by other words not known to us. But this statement 
cannot stand, because the blessing of the consecration is now 
performed by reciting the things which were then accom- 
pHshed; hence, if the consecration was not performed then 
by these words, neither would it be now. 

Accordingly, others have maintained that this blessing 
was effected by the same words as are used now; but that 
Christ spoke them twice, at first secretly, in order to conse- 
crate, and afterwards openly, to instruct others. But even 
this will not hold good, because the priest in consecrating 
uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as openly 
pronounced. Accordingly, since these words have no power 
except from Christ pronouncing them, it seems that Christ 
also consecrated by pronouncing them openly. 

And therefore others said that the Evangelists did not 
always follow the precise order in their narrative as that in 
which things actually happened, as is seen from Augustine 
{De Consens. Evang. ii.) . Hence it is to be understood that the 
order of what took place can be expressed thus : Taking the 
bread He blessed it, saying : This is My body, and then He broke 
it, and gave it to His disci j)les. But the same sense can be 
had even without changing the words of the Gospel ; because 
the participle saying implies sequence of the words uttered 
with what goes before. And it is not necessary for the 
sequence to be understood only with respect to the last 
word spoken, as if Christ had just then pronounced those 
words, when He gave it to His disciples; but the sequence 
can be understood with regard to all that had gone before; 
so that the sense is: While He was blessing, and breaking, 
and giving it to His disciples, He spoke the words, * Take 
ye^ etc. 

Reply Ob]. 2. In these words, Take ye and eat, the use of 
the consecrated matter is indicated, which is not of the 
necessity of this sacrament, as stated above (Q. LXXIV., 
A. 7). And therefore not even these words belong to the 
substance of the form. Nevertheless, because the use of 
the consecrated matter belongs to a certain perfection of 
the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the 



332 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 78. Art. i 

first but the second perfection of a thing, consequently, 
the whole perfection of this sacrament is expressed by all 
those words: and it was in this way that Eusebius under- 
stood that the sacrament was accomplished by those words, 
as to its first and second perfection. 

Reply Ohj. 3. In the sacrament of Baptism the minister 
exercises an act regarding the use of the matter, which is 
of the essence of the sacrament: such is not the case in this 
sacrament ; hence there is no parallel. 

Reply Ohj. 4. Some have contended that this sacrament 
cannot be accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words, 
while leaving out the rest, especially the words in the Canon 
of the Mass. But that this is false can be seen both from 
Ambrose's words quoted above, as well as from the fact 
that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all places or 
times, but various portions have been introduced by various 
people. . 

Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to 
pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of 
consecrating this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid 
because the intention would cause these words to be under- 
stood as spoken in the person of Christ, even though the 
words were pronounced without those that precede. 
The priest, however, would sin gravely in consecrating the 
sacrament thus, as he would not be observing the rite of 
the Church. Nor does the comparison with Baptism prove 
anything; for it is a sacrament of necessity: whereas the 
lack of this sacrament can be supplied by the spiritual 
partaking thereof, as Augustine says {cf. Q. LXXIIL, 
A. 3 a<^ i). 

Second Article. 

whether this is the proper form for the consecration 
of the bread : this is my body ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that this is not the proper form of 
this sacrament : TJtis is My body. For the effect of a sacra- 
ment ought to be expressed in its form. But the effect of 



THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT 333 

the consecration of the bread is the change of the substance 
of the bread into the body of Christ, and this is better 
expressed by the word becomes than by is. Therefore, in 
the form of the consecration we ought to say : This becomes 
My body. 

Obj. 2. Further, Ambrose says {De Sacram. iv.), Christ's 
words consecrate this sacrament. What word of Christ? 
This word, whereby all things are made. The Lord com- 
manded, and the heavens and earth were made. There- 
fore, it would be a more proper form of this sacrament 
if the imperative mood were employed, so as to say: Be 
this My body. 

Obj. 3. Further, that which is changed is implied in the 
subject of this phrase, just as the term of the change is 
implied in the predicate. But just as that into which the 
change is made is something determinate, for the change is 
into nothing else but the body of Christ, so also that which 
is converted is determinate, since only bread is converted 
into the body of Christ. Therefore, as a noun is inserted 
on the part of the predicate, so also should a noun be in- 
serted in the subject, so that it be said: This bread is My 
body. 

Obj. 4. Further, just as the term of the change is deter- 
minate in nature, because it is a body, so also is it deter- 
minate in person. Consequently, in order to determine 
the person, it ought to be said: This is the body of Christ. 

Obj. 5. Further, nothing ought to be inserted in the form 
except what is substantial to it. Consequently, the con- 
junction for is improperly added in some books, since it 
does not belong to the substance of the form. 

On the contrary, Our Lord used this form in consecrating, 
as is evident from Matth. xxvi. 26. 

/ answer that, This is the proper form for the consecra- 
tion of the bread. For it was said (A. i) that this conse- 
cration consists in changing the substance of bread into the 
body of Christ. Now the form of a sacrament ought to 
denote what is done in the sacrament. Consequently the 
form for the consecration of the bread ought to signify the 



334 THE '* SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 78. Art. 2 

actual conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, 
And herein are three things to be considered: namely, the 
actual conversion, the term whence, and the term whereunto. 

Now the conversion can be considered in two ways : first, 
in becoming, secondly, in being. But the conversion ought 
not to be signified in this form as in becoming, but as in being. 
First, because such conversion is not successive, as was 
said above (Q. LXXV., A. 7), but instantaneous; and in 
such changes the becoming is nothing else than the being. — 
Secondly, because the sacramental forms bear the same 
relation to the signification of the sacramental effect as 
artificial forms to the representation of the effect of art. 
Now an artificial form is the likeness of the ultimate effect, 
on which the artist's intention is fixed; just as the art-form 
in the builder's mind is principally the form of the house 
constructed, and secondarily of the constructing. Accord- 
ingly, in this form also the conversion ought to be expressed 
as in being, to which the intention is referred. 

And since the conversion is expressed in this form as in 
being, it is necessary for the extremes of the conversion to be 
signified as they exist in the fact of conversion. But then 
the term whereunto has the proper nature of its own substance ; 
whereas the term whence does not remain in its own sub- 
stance, but only as to the accidents whereby it comes under 
the senses, and can be determined in relation to the senses. 
Hence the term whence of the conversion is conveniently 
expressed by the demonstrative pronoun, relative to the 
sensible accidents which continue; but the term whereunto 
is expressed by the noun signifying the nature of the thing 
which terminates the conversion, and this is Christ's entire 
body, and not merely His flesh; as was said above 
(Q. LXXVL, A, J. ad 2). Hence this form is most appro- 
priate: This is My body. 

Reply Obj. i. The ultimate effect of this conversion is 
not a becoming but a being, as stated above, and consequently 
prominence should be given to this in the form. 

Reply Obj. 2. God's word operated in the creation of things, 
and it is the same which operates in this consecration, yet 



THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT 335 

each in different fashion : because here it operates effectively 
and sacramentally, that is, in virtue of its signification. 
And consequently the last effect of the consecration must 
needs be signified in this sentence by a substantive verb 
of the indicative mood and present time. But in the 
creation of things it worked merely effectively, and such 
efficiency is due to the command of His wisdom ; and there- 
fore in the creation of things the Lord's word is expressed 
by a verb in the imperative mood, as in Gen. i. 3 : Let there 
he light, and light was made. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The term whence does not retain the nature 
of its substance in the being of the conversion, as the term 
whereunto does. Therefore there is no parallel. 

Refly Ohj. 4. The pronoun My, which implicitly points 
to the chief person — i.e., the person of the speaker, suffi- 
ciently indicates Christ's person, in Whose person these 
words are uttered, as stated above (A. i). 

Reply Ohj. 5. The conjunction for is set in this form 
according to the custom of the Roman Church, who derived 
it from Peter the Apostle; and this on account of the 
sequence with the words preceding: and therefore it is not 
part of the form, just as the words preceding the form are 
not. 

Third Article. 

whether this is the proper form for the consecra- 
TION OF THE wine: this IS THE CHALICE OF MY 
BLOOD, ETC. ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that this is not the proper form for 
the consecration of the wine : This is the chalice of My hlood, 
of the New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, 
which shall he shed for you and for many unto the for- 
giveness of sins. For as the bread is changed by the power 
of consecration into Christ's body, so is the wine changed 
into Christ's blood, as is clear from what was said above 
(Q. LXXVL, AA. I, 2, 3). But in the form of the consecra- 
tion of the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, 



336 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 78. Art. 3 

without any addition. Therefore in this form the blood of 
Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the 
chalice in the nominative, when it is said : This is the chalice 
of My blood. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the words spoken in the consecration of 
the bread are not more efficacious than those spoken in the 
consecration of the wine, since both are Christ's words. 
But directly the words are spoken — This is My body, there 
is perfect consecration of the bread. Therefore, directly 
these other words are uttered — This is the chalice of My 
blood, there is perfect consecration of the blood; and so 
the words which follow do not appear to be of the substance 
of the form, especially since they refer to the properties 
of this sacrament. 

Obj. 3. Further, the New Testament seems to be an 
internal inspiration, as is evident from the Apostle quoting 
the words of Jeremias (xxxi. 31) : / will 'perfect unto the 
house of Israel a New Testament . . . , / will give My laws 
into their mind (Heb. viii. 8). But a sacrament is an out- 
ward visible act. Therefore, in the form of the sacrament 
the words of the New Testament are improperly added. 

Obj. 4. Further, a thing is said to be new which is near 
the beginning of its existence. But what is eternal has no 
beginning of its existence. Therefore it is incorrect to say 
of the New and Eternal, because it seems to savour of a 
contradiction. 

Obj. 5. Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld 
from men, according to Isa. Ivii. 14 : Take away the stumbling- 
blocks out of the way of My people. But some have fallen 
into error in thinking that Christ's body and blood are only 
mystically present in this sacrament. Therefore it is out 
of place to add the mystery of faith. 

Obj. 6. Further, it was said above (Q. LXXIIL, A. 3 <3;^ 3), 
that as Baptism is the sacrament of faith, so is the Eucharist 
the sacrament of charity. Consequently, in this form the 
word charity ought rather to be used tha.n faith. 

Obj. 7. Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to 
body and blood, is a memorial of Our Lord's Passion, 



THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT 337 

according to i Cor. xi. 26: As often as you shall eat this bread 
and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord. 
Consequently, mention ought to be made of Christ's Passion 
and its fruit rather in the form of the consecration of the 
blood, than in the form of the consecration of the body, 
especially since Our Lord said : This is My body, which shall 
be delivered up for you (Luke xxii. 19). 

Obj. 8. Further, as was already observed (Q. XLVIIL, 
A. 2; Q. XLIX., A. 3), Christ's Passion sufficed for all; 
while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. There- 
fore it ought to be said : Which shall be shed for all, or else 
for many, without adding, for you. 

Obj. 9. Further, the words whereby this sacrament is 
consecrated draw their efficacy from Christ's institution. 
But no Evangelist narrates that Christ spoke all these 
words. Therefore this is not an appropriate form for the 
consecration of the wine. 

On the contrary. The Church, instructed by the apostles, 
uses this form. 

/ answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this 
form. Some have maintained that the words This is the 
chalice of My blood alone belong to the substance of this 
form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems 
incorrect, because the words which follow them are deter- 
minations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood; conse- 
quently they belong to the integrity of the expression. 

And on this account others say more accurately that all 
the words which follow are of the substance of the form 
down to the words, A s often as ye shall do this, which belong 
to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not 
belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the 
priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and 
manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. More- 
over, in Luke xxii. 20, the words that follow are interposed 
with the preceding words: This is the chalice, the new testa- 
ment in My blood. 

Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words 
belong to the substance of the form ; but that by the first 

III. 3 22 



338 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 78. Art. 3 

words, This is the chalice of My blood, the change of the wine 
into blood is denoted, as explained above (A. 2) in the form 
for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which 
come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the 
Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained 
for three purposes. First and principally for securing our 
eternal heritage, according to Heb. x. 19 : Having confidence 
in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ ; and in 
order to denote this, we say, of the New and Eternal Testa- 
ment. Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith 
according to Rom. iii. 25, 26: Whom God hath frofosed to be 
a propitiation, through faith in His blood, . . . that He Himself 
may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus 
Christ : and on this account we add. The Mystery of Faith. 
Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to both 
of these things, according to Heb. ix. 14 : The blood of Christ 
. . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works, that is, 
from sins; and on this account, we say, which shall be shed 
for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins. 

Reply Obj. i. The expression This is the chalice of My 
blood is a figure of speech, which can be understood in two 
ways. First, as a figure of metonymy; because the con- 
tainer is put for the contained, so that the meaning is : This 
is My blood contained in the chalice ; of which mention is now 
made, because Christ's blood is consecrated in this sacra- 
ment, inasmuch as it is the drink of the faithful, which is not 
implied under the notion of blood; consequently this had 
to be denoted by the vessel adapted for such usage. 

Secondly, it can be taken by way of metaphor, so that 
Christ's Passion is understood by the chalice by way of 
comparison, because, like a cup, it inebriates, according to 
Lam. iii. 15 : He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath in- 
ebriated me with wormwood : hence Our Lord Himself spoke 
of His Passion as a chalice, when He said (Matth. xxvi. 39) : 
Let this chalice pass away from Me : — so that the meaning is: 
This is the chalice of My Passion. This is denoted by the 
blood being consecrated apart from the body ; because it was 
by the Passion that the blood was separated from the body. 



THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT 339 

Refly Ohj. 2. As was said above {ad i; Q. LXXVL, 
A. 2, ad i), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents 
Christ's Passion, and therefore mention is made of the 
fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather 
than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of 
the Passion. This is also pointed out in Our Lord's saying, 
which shall he delivered up for you, as if to say, which shall 
tmdergo the Passion for you. 

Reply Ohj. 3. A testament is the disposal of a heritage. 
But God disposed of a heavenly heritage to men, to be 
bestowed through the virtue of the blood of Jesus Christ; 
because, according to Heb. ix. 16 : Where there is a testament 
the death of the testator must of necessity come in. Now 
Christ's blood was exhibited to men in two ways. First 
of all in figure, and this belongs to the Old Testament; 
consequently the Apostle concludes (ihid) : Whereupon 
neither was the first indeed dedicated without hlood, which is 
evident from this, that, as related in Exod. xxiv. 7, 8, when 
every commandment of the law had been read by Moses, he 
sprinkled all the people saying: This is the hlood of the 
testament which the Lord hath enjoined unto you. 

Secondly, it was shown in very truth ; and this belongs to 
the New Testament. This is what the Apostle premises 
when he says [ihid. 15) : Therefore He is the Mediator of the 
New Testament, that by means of His death . . . they that are 
called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Con- 
sequently, we say here, The hlood of the New Testament, 
because it is shown now not in figure but in truth; and 
therefore we add, which shall he shed for you. — But the 
internal inspiration has its origin in the power of this blood, 
according as we are justified by Christ's Passion. 

Reply Ohj. 4. This Testament is a new one by reason of 
its showing forth : yet it is called eternal both on account of 
God's eternal preordination, as well as on account of the 
eternal heritage which is prepared by this testament. 
Moreover, Christ's Person is eternal, in Whose blood this 
testament is appointed. 

Reply Ohj. 5. The word mystery is inserted, not in order to 



340 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 78. Art. 3 

exclude reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, 
because Christ's blood is in this sacrament in a hidden 
manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the 
Old Testament. 

Reply Ohj. 6. It is called the Sacrament of Faith, as being 
7 an object of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the 
presence of Christ's blood in this sacrament. Moreover 
Christ's Passion justifies by faith. Baptism is called the 
Sacrament of Faith because it is a profession of faith. — 
This is called the Sacrament of Charity, as being figurative 
and effective thereof. 

Reply Ohj. 7. As stated above [ad 2), the blood conse- 
crated apart represents Christ's blood more expressively; and 
therefore mention is made of Christ's Passion and its fruits, 
in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the 
body. 

Reply Ohj. 8. The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy 
not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood 
of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles ; 
nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in 
those others who partake of it; but likewise in those for 
whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, for 
you, the Jews, and for many, namely the Gentiles; or, for 
you who eat of it, and/of many, for whom it is offered. 

Reply Ohj. 9. The Evangelists did not intend to hand 
down the forms of the sacraments, which in the primitive 
Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes 
at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy ; their 
object was to write the story of Christ. Nevertheless 
nearly all these words can be culled from various passages 
of the Scriptures. Because the words. This is the chalice, 
are found in Luke xxii. 20, and i Cor. xxi. 25, while Matthew 
says in chapter xxvi. 28 : This is My hlood of the New Testa- 
ment, which shall he shed for many unto the remission of sins. 
The words added, namely, eternal and mystery of faith, 
were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who re- 
ceived them from Our Lord, according to i Cor. xi. 23 : / 
have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. 



THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT 341 

Fourth Article. 

whether in the aforesaid words of the forms there 
be any created power which causes the conse- 
CRATION ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that in the aforesaid words of the 
forms there is no created power which causes the conse- 
cration. Because Damascene says [De Fide Orthod. iv.) : 
The change of the bread into Chrisfs body is caused solely 
by the power of the Holy Ghost. But the power of the Holy 
Ghost is uncreated. Therefore, this sacrament is not caused 
by any created power of those words. 

Obj. 2. Further, miraculous works are wrought not by 
any created power, but solely by Divine power, as was 
stated in the First Part (Q. CX., A. 4). But the change of 
the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood is a work 
not less miraculous than the creation of things, or than the 
formation of Christ's body in the womb of a virgin: which 
things could not be done by any created power. Therefore, 
neither is this sacrament consecrated by any created power 
of the aforesaid words. 

Obj. 3. Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but 
composed of many; nor are they uttered simultaneously, 
but successively. But, as stated above (Q. LXXV., A. 7), 
this change is wrought instantaneously; hence it must be 
done by a simple power. Therefore it is not effected by 
the power of those words. 

On the contrary, Ambrose says [De Sacram. iv.) : // there 
be such might in the word of the Lord Jesus that things non- 
existent came into being, how much more efficacious is it to 
make things existing to continue, and to be changed into some- 
thing else ? And so, i2)hat was bread before consecration is \ 
now the body of Christ after consecration, because Chrises \ 
word changes a creature into something different. 

I answer that. Some have maintained that neither in the 
above words is there any created power for causing the tran- 
substantiation, nor in the other forms of the sacraments, or 



342 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 78. Art. 4 

even in the sacraments themselves, for producing the sacra- 
mental effects. — This, as was shown above (Q. LXIL, A. i), 
is both contrary to the teachings of the saints, and detracts 
from the dignity of the sacraments of the New Law. Hence, 
since this sacrament is of greater worth than the others, 
as stated above (Q. LXV., A. 3), the result is that there is 
in the words of the form of this sacrament a created power 
which causes the change to be wrought in it : instrumental, 
however, as in the other sacraments, as stated above 
(Q. LXn., AA. 3, 4). For since these words are uttered in 
the person of Christ, it is from His command that they 
receive their instrumental power from Him, just as His other 
deeds and sa3dngs derive their salutary power instrumentally, 
as was observed above (Q. XLVKL, A. 6; Q. LVL, A. i ad 3). 

Refly Ohj. i. When the bread is said to be changed into 
Christ's body solely by the power of the Holy Ghost, the 
instrumental power which lies in the form of this sacrament 
is not excluded: just as when we say that the smith alone 
makes a knife we do not deny the power of the hammer. 

Reply Ohj. 2. No creature can work miracles as the chief 
agent; yet it can do so instrumentally, just as the touch of 
Christ's hand healed the leper. And in this fashion Christ's 
words change the bread into His body. But in Christ's 
conception, whereby His body was fashioned, it was im- 
possible for anything derived from His body to have the 
instrumental power of forming that very body. Likewise 
in creation there was no term wherein the instrumental 
action of a creature could be received. Consequently there 
is no comparison. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The aforesaid words, which work the conse- 
cration, operate sacramentally. Consequently, the convert- 
ing power latent under the forms of these sacraments 
follows the meaning, which is terminated in the uttering 
of the last word. And therefore the aforesaid words have 
this power in the last instant of their being uttered, taken in 
conjunction with those uttered before. And this power is 
simple by reason of the thing signified, although there be 
composition in the words uttered outwardly. 



THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT 343 

Fifth Article, 
whether the aforesaid expressions are true ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the aforesaid expressions are 
not true. Because when we say: This is My body, the 
word this designates a substance. But according to what 
was said above (AA. i, 4, a^ 3; Q. LXXV., AA. 2, 7), when 
the pronoun this is spoken, the substance of the bread is 
still there, because the transubstantiation takes place in 
the last instant of pronouncing the words. But it is false 
to say: Bread is Christ'' s body. Consequently this expression, 
This is My hody, is false. 

Obj. 2. Further, the pronoun this appeals to the senses. 
But the sensible species in this sacrament are neither Christ's 
body nor even its accidents. Therefore this expression, 
This is My body, cannot be true. 

Obj. 3. Further, as was observed above (A. 4, ad 3), these 
words, by their signification, effect the change of the bread 
into the body of Christ. But an effective cause is under- 
stood as preceding its effect. Therefore the meaning of 
these words is understood as preceding the change of the 
bread into the body of Christ. But previous to the change 
this expression. This is My body, is false. Therefore the 
expression is to be judged as false simply; and the same 
reason holds good of the other phrase: This is the chalice 
of My blood, etc. 

On the contrary, These words are pronounced in the 
person of Christ, Who says of Himself (John xiv. 6) : / am the 
truth. 

I answer that, There have been many opinions on this 
point. Some have said that in this expression. This is My 
body, the word this implies demonstration as conceived, 
and not as exercised, because the whole phrase is taken 
materially, since it is uttered by a way of narration : for the 
priest relates that Christ said: This is My body. 

But such a view cannot hold good, because then these 



344 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 78. Art. 5 

words would not be applied to the corporeal matter present, 
and consequently the sacrament would not be valid: for 
Augustine says [Tract. Ixxx. in Joan.) : The word is added to the 
element, and this becomes a sacrament. — Moreover this solu- 
tion ignores entirely the difficulty which this question pre- 
sents: for there is still the objection in regard to the first 
uttering of these words by Christ; since it is evident that 
then they were employed, not materially, but significatively. 
And therefore it must be said that even when spoken by the 
priest they are taken significatively, and not merely materi- 
ally. — Nor does it matter that the priest pronounces them by 
way of recital, as though they were spoken by Christ, because 
owing to Christ's infinite power, just as through contact 
with His flesh the regenerative power entered not only into 
the waters which came into contact with Christ, but into 
all waters throughout the whole world and during all future 
ages, so likewise from Christ's uttering these words they 
derived their consecrating power, by whatever priest they be 
uttered, as if Christ present were saying them. 

And therefore others have said that in this phrase the 
word this appeals, not to the senses, but to the intellect; 
so that the meaning is, This is My body — i.e., The thing 
signified by ' this ' is My body. But neither can this stand, 
because, since in the sacraments the effect is that which is 
signified, from such a form it would not result that Christ's 
body was in very truth in this sacrament, but merely as in 
a sign, which is heretical, as stated above (Q. LXXXV., A. i) . 

Consequently, others have said that the word this appeals 
to the senses ; not at the precise instant of its being uttered, 
but merely at the last instant thereof; as when a man says. 
Now I am silent, this adverb now points to the instant 
immediately following the speech: because the sense is: 
Directly these words are spoken I am silent. — But neither 
can this hold good, because in that case the meaning of the 
sentence would be: My body is My body, which the above 
phrase does not effect, because this was so even before the 
utterance of the words: hence neither does the aforesaid 
sentence mean this. 



THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT 345 

Consequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above 
(A. 4), that this sentence possesses the power of effecting 
the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And 
therefore it is compared to other sentences, which have 
power only of signifying and not of producing, as the con- 
cept of the practical intellect, which is productive of the 
thing, is compared to the concept of our speculative intellect, 
which is drawn from things ; because words are signs of con- 
cepts, as the Philosopher says {Peri Herm. i.). And there- 
fore as the concept of the practical intellect does not pre- 
suppose the thing understood, but makes it, so the truth 
of this expression does not presuppose the thing signified, 
but makes it; for such is the relation of God's word to the 
things made by the Word. Now this change takes place 
not successively, but in an instant, ' as stated above 
(Q. LXXVIL, A. 7). Consequently one must understand 
the aforesaid expression with reference to the last instant 
of the words being spoken, yet not so that the subject may 
be understood to have stood for that which is the term of 
the conversion; viz., that the body of Christ is the body of 
Christ; nor again that the subject be understood to stand 
for that which it was before the conversion, namely, the 
bread; but for that which is commonly related to both, 
i.e., that which is contained in general under those species. 
For these words do not make the body of Christ to be the 
body of Christ, nor do they make the bread to be the body 
of Christ ; but what was contained under those species, and 
was formerly bread, they make to be the body of Christ. And 
therefore expressly Our Lord did not say : This bread is My 
body, which would be the meaning of the second opinion; 
nor — This My body is My body, which would be the meaning 
of the third opinion: but in general: This is My body, 
assigning no noun on the part of the subject, but only a 
pronoun, which signifies substance in common, without 
quality, that is, without a determinate form. 

Reply Obj. i. The term this points to a substance, yet 
without determining its proper nature, as stated- above. 

Reply Obj. 2. The pronoun this does not indicate the 



346 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " q. 78. Art. 5 

accidents, but the substance underlying the accidents, 
which at first was bread, and is afterwards the body of 
Christ, which body, although not informed by those acci- 
dents, is yet contained under them. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The meaning of this expression is, in the 
order of nature, understood before the thing signified, just 
as a cause is naturally prior to the effect; but not in order 
of time, because this cause has its effect with it at the same 
time, and this suffices for the truth of the expression. 



Sixth Article. 

whether the form of the consecration of the bread 
accomplishes its effect before the form of the 
consecration of the wine be completed ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — • 

Objection i. It seems that the form of the consecration 
of the bread does not accomplish its effect until the form 
for the consecration of the wine be completed. For, as 
Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by the conse- 
cration of the bread, so does His blood come to be there by 
the consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for conse- 
crating the bread were to produce their effect before the 
consecration of the wine, it would follow that Christ's body 
would be present in this sacrament without the blood, which 
is improper. 

Ohj. 2. Further, one sacrament has one completion: 
hence although there be three immersions in Baptism, yet 
the first immersion does not produce its effect until the 
third be completed. But all this sacrament is one, as 
stated above (Q. LXXIIL, A. 2). Therefore the words 
whereby the bread is consecrated do not bring about their 
effect without the sacramental words whereby the wine is 
consecrated. 

Ohj. 3. Further, there are several words in the form for 
consecrating the bread, the first of which do not secure 
their effect until the last be uttered, as stated above 
(A. 4 ^^ 3). Therefore, for the same reason, neither do the 



THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT 347 

words for the consecration of Christ's body produce their 
effect, until the words for consecrating Christ's blood are 
spoken. 

On the contrary, Directly the words are uttered for conse- 
crating the bread, the consecrated host is shown to the 
people to be adored, which would not be done if Christ's 
body were not there, for that would be an act of idolatry. 
Therefore the consecrating words of the bread produce 
their effect before the words are spoken for consecrating 
the wine. 

/ answer that, Some of the earlier doctors said that these 
two forms, namely, for consecrating the bread and the 
wine, await each other's action, so that the first does not 
produce its effect until the second be uttered. 

But this cannot stand, because, as stated above (A. 5 ai 3), 
for the truth of this phrase, This is My body, wherein the 
verb is in the present tense, it is required for the thing 
signified to be present simultaneously in time with the signifi- 
cation of the expression used; otherwise, if the thing 
signified had to be awaited for afterwards, a verb of the 
future tense would be employed, and not one of the present 
tense, so that we should not say. This is My body, but — 
This will he My body. But the signification of this speech 
is complete directly those words are spoken. x\nd therefore 
the thing signified must be present instantaneously, and 
such is the effect of this sacrament ; otherwise it would not be 
a true speech. — Moreover, this opinion is against the rite 
of the Church, which forthwith adores the body of Christ 
after the words are uttered. 

Hence it must be said that the first form does not await 
the second in its action, but has its effect on the instant. 

Reply Obj. I. It is on this account that they who main- 
tained the above opinion seem to have erred. Hence it 
must be understood that directly the consecration of the 
bread is complete, the body of Christ is indeed present 
by the power of the sacrament, and the blood by real 
concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the 
wine, conversely, the blood of Christ is there by the power 



348 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 78. Art. 6 

of the sacrament, and the body by real concomitance, 
so that the entire Christ is under either species, as stated 
above (Q. LXXVI., A. 2). 

Reply Ohj. 2. This sacrament is one in perfection, as 
stated above (Q. LXXIIL, A. 2), namely, inasmuch as it is 
made up of two things, that is, of food and drink, each of 
which of itself has its own perfection; but the three im- 
mersions of Baptism are ordained to one simple effect, and 
therefore there is no resemblance. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The various words in the form for conse- 
crating the bread constitute the truth of one speech, but 
the words of the different forms do not, and consequently 
there is no parallel. 



QUESTION LXXIX. 

OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT. 
[In Eight Articles.) 

We must now consider the effects of this sacrament, and 
under this head there are eight points of inquiry : (i) Whether 
this sacrament bestows grace ? (2) Whether the attaining 
of glory is an effect of this sacrament ? (3) Whether the 
forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this sacrament ? 

(4) Whether venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament ? 

(5) Whether the entire punishment due for sin is forgiven 
by this sacrament ? (6) Whether this sacrament preserves 
man from future sins ? (7) Whether this sacrament bene- 
fits others besides the recipients ? (8) Of the obstacles to 
the effect of this sacrament. 

First Article, 
whether grace is bestowed through this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that grace is not bestowed through 
this sacrament. For this sacrament is spiritual nourish- 
ment. But nourishment is only given to the living. There- 
fore since the spiritual life is the effect of grace, this sacra- 
ment belongs only to one in the state of grace. Therefore 
grace is not bestowed through this sacrament for it to be 
had in the first instance. In like manner neither is it given 
so as grace may be increased, because spiritual growth 
belongs to the sacrament of Confirmation, as stated above 
(Q. LXXIL, A. i). Consequently, grace is not bestowed 
through this sacrament. 

349 



350 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 79. Art. i 

Ohj. 2. Further, this sacrament is given as a spiritual 
refreshment. But spiritual refreshment seems to belong to 
the use of grace rather than to its bestowal. Therefore it 
seems that grace is not given through this sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, as was said above (Q. LXXIV., A. i), 
Chrisfs body is offered up in this sacrament for the salvation 
of the body, and His blood for that of the soul. Now it is not 
the body which is the subject of grace, but the soul, as was 
shown in the Second Part (I. -II., Q. CX., A. 4). Therefore 
grace is not bestowed through this sacrament, at least so far 
as the body is concerned. 

On the contrary, Our Lord says (John vi. 52): The bread 
which I will give, is My flesh for the life of the world. But the 
spiritual life is the effect of grace. Therefore grace is 
bestowed through this sacrament. 

I answer that, The effect of this sacrament ought to be 
considered, first of all and principally, from what is con- 
tained in this sacrament, which is Christ; Who, just as by 
coming into the world, He visibly bestowed the life of grace 
^ upon the world, according to John i. 17: Grace and truth 
came by Jesus Christ, so also, by coming sacramentally 
into man, causes the life of grace, according to John vi. 58 : 
He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me. Hence Cyril 
says on Luke xxii. 19 : God^s life-giving Word by uniting Him- 
self with His own flesh, made it to be productive of life. For it 
was becoming that He should be united somehow with bodies 
through His sacred flesh and precious blood, which we receive 
in a life-giving blessing in the bread and wine. 

Secondly, it is considered on the part of what is repre- 
sented by this sacrament, which is Christ's Passion, as 
stated above (Q. LXXIV., A. i; Q. LXXVL, A. 2 ad i). 
^ And therefore this sacrament works in man the effect which 
Christ's Passion wrought in the world. Hence, Chrysostom 
says on the words. Immediately there came out blood and 
water (John xix. 34): Since the sacred mysteries derive their 
origin from thence, when you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring 
chalice, so approach as if you were going to drink from Christ's 
own side. Hence Our Lord Himself says (Matth. xxvi. 28) : 



THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT 351 

This is My blood . . . which shall he shed for many unto the 
remission of sins. 

Thirdly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from 
the way in which this sacrament is given ; for it is given by 
way of food and drink. And therefore this sacrament does 
for the spiritual life all that material food does for the bodily 
life, namely, by sustaining, giving increase, restoring, and 
giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose says (De Sacram. v.) : 
This is the bread of everlasting life, which supports the 
substance of our soul. And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi. 
in Joan.): When we desire it, He lets us feel Him, and 
eat Him, and embrace Him. And hence Our Lord says 
(John vi. 56): My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink 
indeed. 

Fourthly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from 
the species under which it is given. Hence Augustine 
says (Tract, xxvi. in Joan.): Our Lord betokened His body 
and blood in things which out of many units are made into 
some one whole : for out of many grains is one thing made, 
viz., bread; and many grapes flow into one thing, viz., wine. 
And therefore he observes elsewhere (ibid.): sacrament 
of piety, sign of unity, bond of charity ! 

And since Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace; 
and since spiritual refreshment, and charity cannot be 
without grace, it is clear from all that has been set forth that 
this sacrament bestows grace. 

Reply Obj. i. This sacrament has of itself the power of 
bestowing grace; nor does anyone possess grace before 
receiving this sacrament except from some desire thereof; 
from his own desire, as in the case of the adult; or from 
the Church's desire in the case of children, as stated above 
(Q. LXXIII., A. 3). Hence it is due to the efficacy of its 
power, that even from desire thereof a man procures grace 
whereby he is enabled to lead the spiritual life. It remains, 
then, that when the sacrament itself is really received, 
grace is increased, and the spiritual life perfected: yet in 
different fashion from the sacrament of Confirmation, in 
which grace is increased and perfected for resisting the out- 



352 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 79. Art. i 

ward assaults of Christ's enemies. But by this sacrament 
grace receives increase, and the spiritual life is perfected, 
so that man may stand perfect in himself by union with 
God. 

Reply Ohj. 2. This sacrament confers grace spiritually 
together with the virtue of charity. Hence Damascene 
(De Fide Orthod. iv.) compares this sacrament to the burning 
coal which Isaias saw (vi. 6) : For a live emher is not simply 
wood, but wood united to fire ; so also the bread of communion is 
not simple bread, but bread united with the Godhead. But as 
Gregory observes in a Homily for Pentecost, God''s love is 
never idle ; for, wherever it is, it does great works. And conse- 
quently through this sacrament, as far as its power is con- 
cerned, not only is the habit of grace and of virtue bestowed, 
but it is furthermore aroused to act, according to 2 Cor. 
v. 14: The charity of Christ presseth us. Hence it is that 
the soul is spiritually nourished through the power of this 
sacrament, by being spiritually gladdened, and as it were 
inebriated with the sweetness of the Divine goodness, accord- 
ing to Cant. V. I : Eat, friends, and drink, and be inebriated, 
my dearly beloved. 

Reply Obj. 3. Because the sacraments operate according 
to the similitude by which they signify, therefore by way 
of assimilation it is said that in this sacrament the body 
is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the 
salvation of the soul, although each works for the salva- 
tion of both, since the entire Christ is under each, as 
stated above (Q. LXXVL, A. 2). And although the 
body is not the immediate subject of grace, still the 
effect of grace flows into the body while in the present 
life we present our (Vulg., your) members as instruments 
of justice unto God (Rom. vi. 13), and in the life to come 
our body will share in the incorruption and the glory of 
the soul. 



THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT 353 



Second Article. 

whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this 

sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the attaining of glory is not 
an effect of this sacrament. For an effect is proportioned 
to its cause. But this sacrament belongs to wayfarers 
(viatorihus), and hence it is termed Viaticum. Since, then, 
wayfarers are not yet capable of glory, it seems that this 
sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory. 

Ohj. 2. Further, given sufficient cause, the effect follows. 
But many take this sacrament who will never come to 
glory, as Augustine declares {De Civ. Dei. xxi.). Conse- 
quently, this sacrament is not the cause of attaining unto 
glory. 

Ohj. 3. Further, the greater is not brought about by the 
lesser, for nothing acts outside its species. But it is the 
lesser thing to receive Christ under a strange species, which 
happens in this sacrament, than to enjoy Him in His own 
species, which belongs to glory. Therefore this sacrament 
does not cause the attaining of glory. 

On the contrary. It is written (John vi. 52): // any man 
eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. But eternal life is the 
life of glory. Therefore the attaining of glory is an effect 
of this sacrament. 

/ answer that, In this sacrament we may consider both 
that from which it derives its effect, namely, Christ con- 
tained in it, as also His Passion represented by it ; and that 
through which it works its effect, namely, the use of the 
sacrament, and its species. 

Now as to both of these it belongs to this sacrament to 
cause the attaining of eternal life. Because it was by His 
Passion that Christ opened to us the approach to eternal 
life, according to Heb. ix. 15: He is the Mediator of the 
New Testament ; that by means of His death . . . they that 
are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 

"I- 3 23 



354 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 79. Art. 2 

Accordingly in the form of this sacrament it is said: This 
is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament. 

In Hke manner the refreshment of spiritual food and the 
unity denoted by the species of the bread and wine are to 
be had in the present life, although imperfectly; but per- 
fectly in the state of glory. Hence Augustine says on the 
words, My flesh is meat indeed (John vi. 56) : Seeing that in 
meat and drink, men aim at this, that they hunger not nor 
thirst, this verily nought doth afford save only this meat and 
drink which maketh them who partake thereof to be immortal 
and incorruptible, in the fellowship of the saints, where shall 
be peace, and unity, full and perfect. 

Reply Obj. i. As Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof this 
sacrament is accomplished, is indeed the sufficient cause 
of glory, yet not so that we are thereby forthwith admitted 
to glory, but we must first suffer with Him in order that 
we may also be glorified afterwards with Him (Rom. viii. 17), 
so this sacrament does not at once admit us to glory, but 
bestows on us the power of coming unto glory. And 
therefore it is called Viaticum, a figure whereof we read in 
3 Kings xix. 8 : Elias ate and drank, and walked in the strength 
of that food forty days and forty nights unto the mount of God, 
Horeb. 

Reply Obj. 2. Just as Christ's Passion has not its effect 
in them who are not disposed towards it as they should be, 
so also they do not come to glory through this sacrament 
who receive it unworthily. Hence Augustine {Tract, xxvi. 
in Joan.), expounding the same passage, observes: The 
sacrament is one thing, the power of the sacrament another. 
Many receive it from the altar . . . and by receiving die. . . , 
Eat, then, spiritually the heavenly bread, bring innocence to 
the altar. It is no wonder, then, if those who do not keep 
innocence, do not secure the effect of this sacrament. 

Reply Obj. 3. That Christ is received under another species 
belongs to the nature of a sacrament, which acts instru- 
mentally. But there is nothing to prevent an instrumental 
cause from producing a more mighty effect, as is evident 
from what was said above (Q. LXXVII., A. 3 ad '^). 



THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT 355 



Third Article. 

whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect 

of this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the forgiveness of mortal sin 
is an effect of this sacrament. For it is said in one of the 
Collects (Post communion, Pro vivis et defunctis) : May this 
sacrament he a cleansing from crimes. But mortal sins are 
called crimes. Therefore mortal sins are blotted out by 
this sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, this sacrament, like Baptism, works by 
the power of Christ's Passion. But mortal sins are forgiven 
by Baptism, as stated above (Q. LXIX., A. i). Therefore 
they are forgiven likewise by this sacrament, especially 
since in the form of this sacrament it is said: Which shall 
he shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins. 

Ohj. 3. Further, grace is bestowed through this sacra- 
ment, as stated above (A. i). But by grace a man is justified 
from mortal sins, according to Rom. iii. 24: Being justified 
freely hy His grace. Therefore mortal sins are forgiven by 
this sacrament. 

On the contrary, It is written (i Cor. xi. 29) : He that eateth 
and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to 
himself : and a gloss on the same passage makes the fol- 
lowing commentary: He eats and drinks unworthily who is 
in the state of sin, or who handles [the sacrament) irreverently. ; 
and such a one eats and drinks judgment, i.e., damnation, 
unto himself. Therefore, he that is in mortal sin, by taking 
the sacrament heaps sin upon sin, rather than obtains for- 
giveness of his sin. 

/ answer that, The power of this sacrament can be con- 
sidered in two ways. First of all, in itself: and thus this 
sacrament has from Christ's Passion the power of forgiving 
all sins, since the Passion is the fount and cause of the for- 
giveness of sins. 

Secondly, it can be considered in comparison with the 



356 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA '' Q. 79. Art. 3 

recipient of the sacrament, in so far as there is, or is not, 
found in him an obstacle to receiving the fruit of this 
sacrament. Now whoever is conscious of mortal sin, has 
within him an obstacle to receiving the effect of this sacra- 
ment; since he is not a proper recipient of this sacrament, 
both because he is not alive spiritually, and so he ought not 
to eat the spiritual nourishment, since nourishment is con- 
fined to the living; and because he cannot be united with 
Christ, which is the effect of this sacrament, as long as he 
retains an attachment towards mortal sin. Consequently, 
as is said in the book De Eccles. Dogmat. : If the soul leans 
towards sin, it is burdened rather than purified from par- 
taking of the Eucharist. Hence, in him who is conscious of 
mortal sin, this sacrament does not cause the forgiveness 
of sin. 

Nevertheless this sacrament can effect the forgiveness 
of sin in two ways. First of all, by being received, not 
actually, but in desire; as when a man is first justified from 
sin. Secondly, when received by one in mortal sin of 
which he is not conscious, and for which he has no attach- 
ment; since possibly he was not sufficiently contrite at 
first, but by approaching this sacrament devoutly and 
reverently he obtains the grace of charity, which will per- 
fect his contrition and bring forgiveness of sin. 

Reply Ohj. i. We ask that this sacrament may be the 
cleansing of crimes, or of those sins of which we are uncon- 
scious, according to Ps. xviii. 13: Lord, cleanse me from my 
hidden sins ; or that our contrition may be perfected for the 
forgiveness of our sins; or that strength be bestowed on us 
to avoid sin. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Baptism is spiritual generation, which is a 
transition from spiritual non-being into spiritual being, and 
is given by way of ablution. Consequently, in both respects 
he who is conscious of mortal sin does not improperly 
approach Baptism. But in this sacrament man receives 
Christ within himself by way of spiritual nourisliment, which 
is unbecoming to one that lies dead in his sins. Therefore 
the comparison does not hold good. 



THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT 357 

Reply Ohj. 3. Grace is the sufficient cause of the forgiveness 
of mortal sin; yet it does not forgive sin except when it is 
first bestowed on the sinner. But it is not given so in this 
sacrament. Hence the argument does not prove. 



Fourth Article. 

whether venial sins are forgiven through this 

sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that venial sins are not forgiven 
by this sacrament, because this is the sacrament of charity y 
as Augustine says {Tract, xxvi. in Joan.), But venial sins 
are not contrary to charity, as was shown in the Second 
Part (I.-IL, Q. LXXXVIIL, AA. i, 2; II.-IL, Q. XXIV., 
A. 10). Therefore, since contrary is taken away by its 
contrary, it seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this 
sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, if venial sins be forgiven by this sacra- 
ment, then all of them are forgiven for the same reason 
as one is. But it does not appear that all are forgiven, 
because thus one might frequently be without any venial sin, 
against what is said in i John i. 8 : If we say that we have 
no sin, we deceive ourselves. Therefore no venial sin is for- 
given by this sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, contraries mutually exclude each other. 
But venial sins do not forbid the receiving of this sacra- 
ment: because Augustine says on the words, // any man 
eat of it, he shall (Vulg., may) not die for ever (John vi. 50): 
Bring innocence to the altar : your sins, though they be daily, 
. . . let them not be deadly. Therefore neither are venial 
sins taken away by this sacrament. 

On the contrary, Innocent III. says (De S. Alt. Myst. iv.) 
that this sacrament blots out venial sins, and wards off mortal 
sins. 

I answer that. Two things may be considered in this sacra- 
ment, to wit, the sacrament itself, and the reality of the 
sacrament: and it appears from both that this sacrament 



358 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 79. Art. 4 

has the power of forgiving venial sins. For this sacrament 
is received under the form of nourishing food. Now nourish- 
ment from food is requisite for the body to make good the 
daily waste caused by the action of natural heat. But 
something is also lost daily of our spirituality from the 
heat of concupiscence through venial sins, which lessen the 
fervour of charity, as was shown in the Second Part (I I. -I I., 
Q. XXIV., A. 10). And therefore it belongs to this sacra- 
ment to forgive venial sins. Hence Ambrose says {De 
Sacrum, v.) that this daily bread is taken as a remedy 
against daily infirmity. 

The reality of this sacrament is charity, not only as to 
its habit, but also as to its act, which is kindled in this 
sacrament; and by this means venial sins are forgiven. 
Consequently, it is manifest that venial sins are forgiven 
by the power of this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. i. Venial sins, although not opposed to the 
habit of charity, are nevertheless opposed to the fervour 
of its act, which act is kindled by this sacrament ; by 
reason of which act venial sins are blotted out. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The passage quoted is not to be under- 
stood as if a man could not at some time be without all 
guilt of venial sin: but that the just do not pass through 
this life without committing venial sins. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The power of charity, to which this sacrament 
belongs, is greater than that of venial sins: because charity 
by its act takes away venial sins, which nevertheless cannot 
entirely hinder the act of charity. And the same holds good 
of this sacrament. 

Fifth Article. 

whether the entire punishment due to sin is for- 
given through this sacrament? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — ■ 

Ohjection i. It seems that the entire punishment due to 
sin is forgiven through this sacrament. For through this 
sacrament man receives the effect of Christ's Passion within 
himself, as stated above (AA. i, 2), just as he does through 



THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT 359 

Baptism. But through Baptism man receives forgiveness 
of all punishment, through the virtue of Christ's Passion, 
which satisfied sufficiently for all sins, as was explained 
above (Q. LXIX., A. 2). Therefore it seems the whole debt 
of punishment is forgiven through this sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, Pope x\lexander (I.) says (Ep. ad omnes 
Orthod.) : No sacrifice can he greater than the body and the 
blood of Christ. But man satisfied for his sins by the sacri- 
fices of the Old Law: for it is written (Lev. iv. and v.): // 
a man shall sin, let him offer (so and so) for his sin, and it 
shall be forgiven him. Therefore this sacrament avails much 
more for the forgiveness of all punishment. 

Obj. 3. Further, it is certain that some part of the debt 
of punishment is forgiven by this sacrament; for which 
reason it is sometimes enjoined upon a man, by way of satis- 
faction, to have masses said for himself. But if one part 
of the punishment is forgiven, for the same reason is the 
other forgiven: owing to Christ's infinite power contained 
in this sacrament. Consequently, it seems that the whole 
punishment can be taken away by this sacrament. 

On the contrary, In that case no other punishment would 
have to be enjoined; just as none is imposed upon the newly 
baptized. 

/ answer that. This sacrament is both a sacrifice and a 
sacrament; it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as it is 
offered up; and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch 
as it is received. And therefore it has the effect of a sacra- 
ment in the recipient, and the effect of a sacrifice in the 
offerer, or in them for whom it is offered. 

If, then, it be considered as a sacrament, it produces its 
effect in two ways: first of all directly through the power 
of the sacrament; secondly as by a kind of concomitance, as 
was said above regarding what is contained in the sacra- 
ment (Q. LXXVL, AA. I, 2). Through the power of the 
sacrament it produces directly that effect for which it was 
instituted. Now it was instituted not for satisfaction, but 
for nourishing spiritually through union between Christ and 
His members, as nourishment is united with the person 



350 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGlCA " Q. 79. Art. 5 

nourished. But because this union is the effect of charity, 
from the fervour of which man obtains forgiveness, not 
only of guilt but also of punishment, hence it is that as a 
consequence, and by concomitance with the chief effect, 
man obtains forgiveness of the punishment, not indeed of 
the entire punishment, but according to the measure of his 
devotion and fervour. 

But in so far as it is a sacrifice, it has a satisfactory 
power. Yet in satisfaction, the affection of the offerer is 
weighed rather than the quantity of the offering. Hence Our 
Lord says (Mark xii. 43 : cf. Luke xxi. 4) of the widow who 
offered two mites that she cast in more than all. Therefore, 
although this offering suffices of its own quantity to satisfy 
for all punishment, yet it becomes satisfactory for them for 
whom it is offered, or even for the offerers, according to the 
measure of their devotion, and not for the whole punishment. 

Reply Obj. i. The sacrament of Baptism is directly 
ordained for the remission of punishment and guilt : not so 
the Eucharist, because Baptism is given to man as dying 
with Christ, whereas the Eucharist is given as by way 
of nourishing and perfecting him through Christ. Conse- 
quently there is no parallel. 

Reply Obj. 2. Those other sacrifices and oblations did not 
effect the forgiveness of the whole punishment, neither as 
to the quantity of the thing offered, as this sacrament does, 
nor as to personal devotion; from which it comes to pass 
that even here the whole punishment is not taken away. 

Reply Obj. 3. If part of the punishment and not the 
whole be taken away by this sacrament, it is due to a defect 
not on the part of Christ's power, but on the part of man's 
devotion. 

Sixth Article. 

whether man is preserved by this sacrament from 

future sins ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 
Objection i. It seems that man is not preserved by 
this sacrament from future sins. For there are many that 



THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT 361 

receive this sacrament worthily, who afterwards fall into 
sin. Now this would not happen if this sacrament were to 
preserve them from future sins. Consequently, it is not an 
effect of this sacrament to preserve from future sins. 

Ohj. 2. Further, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, 
as stated above (A. 4). But charity does not seem to 
preserve from future sins, because it can be lost through 
sin after one has possessed it, as was stated in the Second 
Part (IL-II., Q. XXIV., A. 11). Therefore it seems that 
this sacrament does not preserve man from sin. 

Ohj. 3. Further, the origin of sin within us is the law of 
sin, which is in our members, as declared by the Apostle 
(Rom. vii. 23). But the lessening of the fomes, which is 
the law of sin, is set down as an effect not of this sacrament, 
but rather of Baptism. Therefore preservation from sin 
is not an effect of this sacrarnent. 

On the contrary. Our Lord said (John vi. 50): This is the 
bread which cometh down from heaven ; that if any man eat 
of it, he may not die : which manifestly is not to be understood 
of the death of the body. Therefore it is to be understood 
that this sacrament preserves from spiritual death, which 
is through sin. 

/ answer that. Sin is the spiritual death of the soul. Hence 
man is preserved from future sin in the same way as the 
body is preserved from future death of the body: and this 
happens in two ways. First of all, in so far as man's nature 
is strengthened inwardly against inner decay, and so by 
means of food and medicine he is preserved from death. 
Secondly, by being guarded against outward assaults; and 
thus he is protected by means of arms by which he defends 
his body. 

Now this sacrament preserves man from sin in both of 
these ways. For, first of all, by uniting man with Christ 
through grace, it strengthens his spiritual life, as spiritual 
food and spiritual medicine, according to Ps. ciii. 5 (That) 
bread strengthens (Vulg., may strengthen) man^s heart. Augus- 
tine likewise says (Tract, xxvi. in Joan.)'. Approach without 
fear : it is bread, not poison. Secondly, inasmuch as it is 



362 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 79. Art. 6 

a sign of Christ's Passion, whereby the devils are conquered, 
it repels all the assaults of demons. Hence Chrysostom 
says (Horn. xlvi. in Joan.) : Like lions breathing forth fire, 
thus do we depart from that table, being made terrible to the 
devil. 

Reply Obj. i. The effect of this sacrament is received 
according to man's condition: such is the case with every 
active cause in that its effect is received in matter according 
to the condition of the matter. But such is the condition 
of man on earth that his free-will can be bent to good or 
evil. Hence, although this sacrament of itself has the 
power of preserving from sin, yet it does not take away 
from man the possibility of sinning. 

Reply Ob]. 2. Even charity of itself keeps man from sin, 
according to Rom. xiii. 10: The love of our neighbour worketh 
no evil : but it is due to the mutabihty of free-will that a 
man sins after possessing charity, just as after receiving 
this sacrament. 

Reply Obj. 3. Although this sacrament is not ordained 
directly to lessen the fomes, yet it does lessen it as a conse- 
quence, inasmuch as it increases charity, because, as Augus- 
tine says (Qq. 83), the increase of charity is the lessening 
of concupiscence. But it directly strengthens man's heart 
in good; whereby he is also preserved from sin. 

Seventh Article. 

whether this sacrament benefits others besides the 

recipients ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 

Objection n. It seems that this sacrament benefits only the 
recipients. For this sacrament is of the same genus as the 
other sacraments, being one of those into which that genus 
is divided. But the other sacraments only benefit the 
recipients; thus the baptized person alone receives the 
effect of Baptism. Therefore, neither does this sacrament 
benefit others than the recipients. 

Obj. 2. Further, the effects of this sacrament are the 



THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT 363 

attainment of grace and glory, and the forgiveness of sin, at 
least of venial sin. If therefore this sacrament were to 
produce its effects in others besides the recipients, a man 
might happen to acquire grace and glory and forgiveness 
of sin without doing or receiving anything himself, through 
another receiving or offering this sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, when the cause is multiplied, the effect 
is likewise multiplied. If therefore this sacrament benefit 
others besides the recipients, it would follow that it benefits 
a man more if he receive this sacrament through many 
hosts being consecrated in one mass, whereas this is not 
the Church's custom: for instance, that many receive com- 
munion for the salvation of one individual. Consequently, 
it does not seem that this sacrament benefits anyone but 
the recipient. 

On the contrary, Prayer is made for many others during 
the celebration of this saerament; which would serve no 
purpose were the sacrament not beneficial to others. There- 
fore, this sacrament is beneficial not merely to them who 
receive it. 

, / answer that, As stated above (A. 3), this sacrament is 
not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. For, it has the 
nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as in this sacrament Christ's 
Passion is represented, whereby Christ offered Himself a 
Victim to God (Eph. v. 2), and it has the nature of a sacra- 
ment inasmuch as invisible grace is bestowed in this sacra- 
ment under a visible species. So, then, this sacrament 
benefits recipients by way both of sacrament and of sacri- 
fice, because it is offered for all who partake of it. For it is 
said in the Canon of the Mass : May as many of us as, by 
participation at this Altar, shall receive the most sacred body 
and blood of Thy Son, be filled with all heavenly benediction 
and grace. 

^: But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way 
of sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation. 
Hence it is said in the Canon of the Mass: Be mindfid, 
Lord, of Thy servants, men and women . . . for whom we 
offer, or who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise for them- 



364 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 79. Art. 7 

selves and for all their own, for the redemption of their souls, 
for the hope of their safety and salvation. And Our Lord 
expressed both ways, saying (Matth. xxvi. 28, with Luke 
xxii. 20): Which for you, i.e., who receive it, and for many, 
i.e., others, shall he shed unto remission of sins. 

Reply Ohj. i. This sacrament has this in addition to the 
others, that it is a sacrifice: and therefore the comparison 
fails. 

Reply Ohj. 2. As Christ's Passion benefits all, for the for- 
giveness of sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas 
it produces no effect except in those who are united with 
Christ's Passion through faith and charity, so likewise this 
sacrifice, which is the memorial of Our Lord's Passion, has 
no effect except in those who are united with this sacra- 
ment through faith and charity. Hence Augustine says 
to Renatus {De Anima et ejus origine, i.): Who may offer 
Chrisfs hody except for them who are Chrisfs memhers ? 
Hence in the Canon of the Mass no prayer is made for 
them who are outside the pale of the Church. But it bene- 
fits them who are members, more or less, according to the 
measure of their devotion. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Receiving is of the very nature of the 
sacrament, but offering belongs to the nature of sacrifice: 
consequently, when one or even several receive the body 
of Christ, no help accrues to others. In like fashion even 
when the priest consecrates several hosts in one mass, the 
effect of this sacrament is not increased, since there is only 
one sacrifice; because there is no more power in several 
hosts than in one, since there is only one Christ present 
under all the hosts and under one. Hence, neither will 
any one receive greater effect from the sacrament by taking 
many consecrated hosts in one mass. But the oblation of 
the sacrifice is multiplied in several masses, and therefore 
the effect of the sacrifice and of the sacrament is multipHed. 



THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT 365 



Eighth Article. 

whether the effect of this sacrament is hindered 

by venial sin ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — • 

Objection 1. It seems that the effect of this sacrament is 
not hindered by venial sin. For Augustine {Tract, xxvi. 
in Joan.), commenting on John vi. 52, If any man eat of 
this bread, etc., says: Eat the heavenly bread spiritually ; 
bring innocence to the altar ; your sins, though they be daily, 
let them not be deadly. From this it is evident that venial 
sins, which are called daily sins, do not prevent spiritual 
eating. But they who eat spiritually, receive the effect of 
this sacrament. Therefore, venial sins do not hinder the 
effect of this sacrament. 

Obj. 2. Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than 
Baptism. But, as stated above (Q. LXIX., AA. 9, 10), 
only pretence checks the effect of Baptism, and venial sins 
do not belong to pretence; because according to Wis. i. 5: 
the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful, yet 
He is not put to flight by venial sins. Therefore neither 
do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament. 

Obj. 3. Further, nothing which is removed by the action 
of any cause, can hinder the effect of such cause. But 
venial sins are taken away by this sacrament. Therefore, 
they do not hinder its effect. 

On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orthod. iv.): 
The fire of that desire which is within us, being kindled by the 
burning coal, i.e., this sacrament, will consume our sins, and 
enlighten our hearts, so that we shall be inflamed and made god- 
like. But the fire of our desire or love is hindered by venial 
sins, which hinder the fervour of charity, as was shown in 
the Second Part (I.-II., Q. LXXXI., A. 4; II.-IL, O. XXIV., 
A. 10). Therefore venial sins hinder the effect of this sacra- 
ment. 

/ answer that, Venial sins can be taken in two ways: first 
of all as past, secondly as in the act of being committed. 



366 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 79. Art. 8 

Venial sins taken in the first way do not in any way hinder 
the effect of this sacrament. For it can come to pass that 
after many venial sins a man may approach devoutly to 
this sacrament and fully secure its effect. Considered in 
the second way, venial sins do not utterly hinder the effect 
of this sacrament, but merely in part. For, it has been 
stated above (A. i), that the effect of this sacrament is not 
only the obtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a 
certain actual refreshment of spiritual sweetness; which is 
indeed hindered if anyone approach to this sacrament with 
mind distracted through venial sins; but the increase of 
habitual grace or of charity is not taken away. 

Reply Ohj. i. He that approaches this sacrament with 
actual venial sin, eats spiritually indeed, in habit but not 
in act : and therefore he shares in the habitual effect of the 
sacrament, but not in its actual effect. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Baptism is not ordained, as this sacrament 
is, for the fervour of charity as its actual effect. Because 
Baptism is spiritual regeneration, through which the first 
perfection is acquired, which is a habit or form; but this 
sacrament is spiritual eating, which has actual delight. 

Reply Ohj. 3. This argument deals with past venial sins, 
which are taken away by this sacrament. 



QUESTION LXXX. 

OF THE USE OR RECEIVING OF THIS SACRAMENT 

IN GENERAL 

[In Twelve Articles.) 

We have now to consider the use or receiving of this sacra- 
ment, first of all in general; secondly, how Christ used this 
sacrament. 

Under the first heading there are twelve points of in- 
quiry: (i) Whether there are two ways of eating this sacra- 
ment, namely, sacramentally and spiritually ? (2) Whether 
it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually ? 
(3) Whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it sacra- 
mentally ? (4) Whether the sinner sins in eating it sacra- 
mentally ? (5) Of the degree of this sin. (6) Whether this 
sacrament should be refused to the sinner that approaches 
it ? (7) Whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from 
receiving this sacrament ? (8) Whether it is to be received 
only when one is fasting ? (9) Whether it is to be given to 
them who lack the use of reason ? (10) Whether it is to 
be received daily ? (11) Whether it is lawful to refrain 
from it altogether ? (12) Whether it is lawful to receive 
the body without the blood ? 

First Article. 

whether there are two ways to be distinguished of 
EATING Christ's body ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 
Objection i. It seems tliat two ways ought not to be 
distinguished of eating Christ's body, namely, sacramentally 

367 



368 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. i 

and spiritually. For, as Baptism is spiritual regeneration, 
according to John iii. 5 : Unless a man he horn again of water 
and the Holy Ghost, etc., so also this sacrament is spiritual 
food: hence Our Lord, speaking of this sacrament, says 
(John vi. 64): The words that I have spoken to you are spirit 
and life. But there are no two distinct ways of receiving 
Baptism, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. There- 
fore neither ought this distinction to be made regarding 
this sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, when two things are so related that one 
is on account of the other, they should not be put in contra- 
distinction to one another, because the one derives its 
species from the other. But sacramental eating is ordained 
for spiritual eating as its end. Therefore sacramental eating 
ought not to be divided in contrast with spiritual eating. 

Ohj. 3. Further, things which cannot exist without one 
another ought not to be divided in contrast with each other. 
But it seems that no one can eat spiritually without eating 
sacramentally; otherwise the fathers of old would have 
eaten this sacrament spiritually. Moreover, sacramental 
eating would be to no purpose, if the spiritual eating could 
be had without it. Therefore it is not right to distinguish 
a twofold eating, namely, sacramental and spiritual. 

On the contrary, The gloss says on i Cor. xi. 29: He that 
eateth and drinketh unworthily, etc. : We hold that there are two 
ways of eating, the one sacramental, and the other spiritual. 
, I answer that, There are two things to be considered in 
the receiving of this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, 
and its fruits, and we have already spoken of both 
(QQ. LXXIIL, LXXIX.). The perfect way, then, of 
receiving this sacrament is when one takes it so as to partake 
of its effect. Now, as was stated above (Q. LXXIX., AA. 3,8), 
it sometimes happens that a man is hindered from receiving 
the effect of this sacrament ; and such receiving of this sacra- 
ment is an imperfect one. Therefore, as the perfect is 
divided against the imperfect, so sacramental eating, whereby 
the sacrament only is received without its effect, is divided 
against spiritual eating, by which one receives the effect of 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 369 

this sacrament^ whereby a man is spiritually united with 
Christ through faith and charity. 

Reply Ohj. i. The same distinction is made regarding 
Baptism and the other sacraments: for, some receive the 
sacrament only, while others receive the sacrament and 
the reality of the sacrament. However, there is a differ- 
ence, because, since the other sacraments are accomplished 
in the use of the matter, the receiving of the sacra- 
ment is the actual perfection of the sacrament; whereas 
this sacrament is accomplished in the consecration of the 
matter : and consequently both uses follow the sacrament. 
On the other hand, in Baptism and in the other sacraments 
that imprint a character, they who receive the sacrament 
receive some spiritual effect, that is, the character; which 
is not the case in this sacrament. And therefore, in this 
sacrament, rather than in Baptism, the sacramental use is 
distinguished from the spiritual use. 

Reply Ohj. 2. That sacramental eating which is also a 
spiritual eating is not divided in contrast with spiritual 
eating, but is included under it; but that sacramental eating 
which does not secure the effect, is divided in contrast with 
spiritual eating ; just as the imperfect, which does not attain 
the perfection of its species, is divided in contrast with the 
perfect. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As stated above (Q. LXXUL, A. 3), the 
effect of the sacrament can be secured by every man if 
he receive it in desire, though not in reality. Consequently, . 
just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, 
through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in 
the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament 
spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. Now this 
happens in two ways. First of all, from desire of receiving 
the sacrament itself, and thus are said to be baptized, and 
to eat spiritually, and not sacramentally, they who desire 
to receive these sacraments since they have been instituted. 
Secondly, by a figure : thus the Apostle says (i Cor. x. 2), that 
the fathers of old were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, 
and that they did eat . . . spiritual food, and . . . drank 

III. 3 24 



370 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. i 

. . . spiritual drink. Nevertheless sacramental eating is 
not without avail, because the actual receiving of the sacra- 
ment produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than 
does the desire thereof, as stated above of Baptism (Q. LXIX., 
A. 4 ad 2). 

Second Article. 

whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament 

spiritually ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that it does not belong to man alone 
to eat this sacrament spiritually, but likewise to angels. 
Because on Ps. Ixxvii. 25 : Man ate the bread of angels, the 
gloss says, — that is, the body of Christ, Who is truly the 
food of angels. But it would not be so unless the angels 
were to eat Christ spiritually. Therefore the angels eat 
Christ spiritually. 

Obj. 2. Further, Augustine (Tract, xxvi. in foan.) says: 
By this meat and drink. He would have us to understand the 
fellowship of His body and members, which is the Church 
in His predestinated ones. But not only men, but also the 
holy angels belong to that fellowship. Therefore the holy 
angels eat of it spiritually. 

Obj. 3. Further, Augustine in his book De Verbis Domini 
(Serm. cxlii.) says: Christ is to be eaten spiritually, as He 
Himself declares : ' He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My 
blood, abideth in Me, and I in him.' But this belongs not 
only to men, but also to the holy angels, in whom Christ 
dwells by charity, and they in Him. Consequently, it 
seems that to eat Christ spiritually is not for men only, 
but also for the angels. 

On the contrary, Augustine (Tract, xxvi. in foan.) says: 
Eat the bread of the altar spiritually ; take innocence to the 
altar. But angels do not approach the altar as for the 
purpose of taking something therefrom. Therefore the 
angels do not eat spiritually. 

/ answer that, Christ Himself is contained in this sacra- 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 371 

ment, not under His proper species, but under the sacra- 
mental species. Consequently there are two ways of eating 
spiritually. First, as Christ Himself exists under His proper 
species, and in this way the angels eat Christ spiritually 
inasmuch as they are united with Him in the enjoyment 
of perfect charity, and in clear vision (and this is the bread 
we hope for in heaven), and not by faith, as we are united 
with Him here. 

In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is 
under the sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes 
in Christ, while desiring to receive this sacrament; and 
this is not merely to eat Christ spiritually, but likewise to 
eat this sacrament; which does not fall to the lot of the 
angels. And therefore although the angels feed on Christ 
spiritually, yet it does not belong to them to eat this 
sacrament spiritually. 

Reply Ohj, i. The receiving of Christ under this sacra- 
ment is ordained to the enjoyment of heaven, as to its end, 
in the same way as the angels enjoy it; and since the means 
are gauged by the end, hence it is that such eating of Christ 
whereby we receive Him under this sacrament, is, as it 
were, derived from that eating whereby the angels enjoy 
Christ in heaven. Consequently, man is said to eat the 
bread of angels, because it belongs to the angels to do so 
firstly and principally, since they enjoy Him in his proper 
species; and secondly it belongs to men, who receive Christ 
under this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Both men and angels belong to the fellowship 
of His mystical body; men by faith, and angels by manifest 
vision. But the sacraments are proportioned to faith, 
through which the truth is seen through a glass and in a 
dark manner. And therefore, properly speaking, it does 
not belong to angels, but to men, to eat this sacrament 
spiritually. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Christ dwells in men through faith, accord- 
ing to their present state, but He is in the blessed angels by 
manifest vision. Consequently the comparison does not 
hold, as stated above {ad 2). 



u 



372 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " g. 80. Art. 3 



Third Article. 

whether the just man alone may eat christ 
sacramentally ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that none but the just man may 
eat Christ sacrament ally. For Augustine says in his book 
De Remedio Penitentice {cf. Tract, in Joan, xxv., n. 12; 
xxvi., n. 1): Why make ready tooth and belly ? Believe, and 
thou hast eaten. . . . For to believe in Him, this it is, to 
eat the living bread. But the sinner does not believe in 
Him; because he has not living faith, to which it belongs 
to believe in God, as stated above in the Second Part (I I. -I I., 
Q. n., A. 2; Q. IV., A. 5). Therefore the sinner cannot eat 
this sacrament, which is the living bread. 

Obj. 2. Further, this sacrament is specially called the 
sacrament of charity, as stated above (Q. LXXVIIL, A. 3 
ad 6). But as unbelievers lack faith, so all sinners lack 
charity. Now unbelievers do not seem to be capable of 
eating this sacrament^ since in the sacramental form it is 
called the Mystery of Faith. Therefore, for like reason, the 
sinner cannot eat Christ's body sacramentally. 

Obj. 3. Further, the sinner is more abominable before 
God than the irrational creature : for it is said of the sinner 
(Ps. xlviii. 21): Man when he was in honour did not under- 
stand ; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made 
like to ihem. But an irrational animal, such as a mouse 
or a dog, cannot receive this sacrament, just as it cannot 
receive the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore it seems that 
for the like reason neither may sinners eat this sacrament. 

On the contrary, Augustine (Tract, xxvi. in Joan.), com- 
menting on the words, that if any man eat of it he may not 
die, says : Many receive from the altar, and by receiving die : 
whence the Apostle saith, ' eateth and drinketh judgment to 
himself.' But only sinners die by receiving. Therefore 
sinners eat the body of Christ sacramentally, and not the 
just only. 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 373 

I answer that, In the past, some have erred upon this 
point, saying that Christ's body is not received sacramentally 
by sinners; but that directly the body is touched by the 
Hps of sinners, it ceases to be under the sacramental species. 

But this is erroneous; because it detracts from the truth 
of this sacrament, to which truth it belongs that so long 
as the species last, Christ's body does not cease to be under 
them, as stated above (Q. LXXVI., A. 6 ai 3; Q. LXXVIL, 
A. 8). But the species last so long as the substance of the 
bread would remain, if it were there, as was stated above 
(Q. LXXVIL, A. 4). Now it is clear that the substance of 
bread taken by a sinner does not at once cease to be, but 
it continues until digested by natural heat: hence Christ's 
body remains just as long under the sacramental species 
when taken by sinners. Hence it must be said that the 
sinner, and not merely the just, can eat Christ's body. 

Reply Ohj. i. Such words and similar expressions are to 
be understood of spiritual eating, which does not belong to 
sinners. Consequently, it is from such expressions being 
misunderstood that the above error seems to have arisen, 
through ignorance of the distinction between corporeal 
and spiritual eating. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Should even an unbeliever receive the 
sacramental species, he would receive Christ's body under 
the sacrament : hence he would eat Christ sacramentally, if 
the word sacramentally qualify the verb on the part of the 
thing eaten. But if it qualify the verb on the part of the 
one eating, then, properly speaking, he does not eat sacra- 
mentally, because he uses what he takes, not as a sacra- 
ment, but as simple food. Unless perchance the unbeliever 
were to intend to receive what the Church bestows ; without 
having proper faith regarding the other articles, or regard- 
ing this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat 
the consecrated host, the substance of Christ's body would 
not cease to be under the species, so long as those species 
remain, and that is, so long as the substance of bread would 
have remained; just as if it were to be cast into the mire. 



374 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 3 

Nor does this turn to any indignity regarding Christ's body, 
since He willed to be crucified by sinners without detracting 
from His dignity; especially since the mouse or dog does not 
touch Christ's body in its proper species, but only as to its 
sacramental species. 

Some, however, have said that Christ's body would cease 
to be there, directly it were touched by a mouse or a dog; 
but this again detracts from the truth of the sacrament, as 
stated above. 

None the less it must not be said that the irrational 
anim-al eats the body of Christ sacramentally ; since it is 
incapable of using it as a sacrament. Hence it eats Christ's 
body accidentally, and not sacramentally, just as if anyone 
not knowing a host to be consecrated were to consume it. 
And since no genus is divided by an accidental difference, 
therefore this manner of eating Christ's body is not set 
down as a third way besides sacramental and spiritual eating. 



Fourth Article. 

whether the sinner sins in receiving christ's body 

sacramentally ? 

We 'proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that the sinner does not sin in 
receiving Christ's body sacramentally, because Christ has 
no greater dignity under the sacramental species than 
under His own. But sinners did not sin when they touched 
Christ's body under its proper species; nay, rather they 
obtained forgiveness of their sins, as we read in Luke vii. 
of the woman who was a sinner; while it is written (Matth. 
xiv. 36) that as many as touched the hem of His garment 
were healed. Therefore, they do not sin, but rather obtain 
salvation, by receiving the body of Christ. 

Ohj. 2. Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a 
spiritual medicine. But medicine is given to the sick for 
their recovery, according to Matth. ix. 12: They that are 
in health need not a physician. Now they that are spiritually 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 375 

sick or infirm are sinners. Therefore this sacrament can 
be received by them without sin, 

Ohj. 3. Further, this sacrament is one of our greatest gifts, 
since it contains Christ. But according to Augustine {De 
Lib. Arb. ii.), the greatest gifts are those which no one 
can abuse. Now no one sins except by abusing something. 
Therefore no sinner sins by receiving this sacrament. 

Obj. 4. Further, as this sacrament is perceived by taste 
and touch, so also is it by sight. Consequently, if the 
sinner sins by receiving the sacrament, it seems that he would 
sin by beholding it, which is manifestly untrue, since the 
Church exposes this sacrament to be seen and adored by all. 
Therefore the sinner does not sin by eating this sacrament. 

Obj. 5. Further, it happens sometimes that the sinner is 
unconscious of his sin. Yet such a one does not seem to 
sin by receiving the body of Christ, for according to this all 
who receive it would sin, as exposing themselves to danger, 
since the Apostle says (i Cor. iv. 4) : / am not conscious to 
myself of anything, yet I am not hereby justified. Therefore, 
the sinner, if he receive this sacrament, does not appear to be 
guilty of sin. 

On the contrary, The Apostle says (i Cor. xi. 29) : He that 
eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment 
to himself. Now the gloss says on this passage: He eats 
and drinks unworthily who is in sin, or who handles it irrever- 
ently. Therefore, if anyone, while in mortal sin, receives this 
sacrament, he purchases damnation, by sinning mortally. 

/ answer that, In this sacrament, as in the others, that 
which is a sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. 
Now there is a twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated 
above (Q. LXXIIL, A. 6): one which is signified and con- 
tained, namely, Christ Himself; while the other is signified 
but not contained, namely, Christ's mystical body, which is 
the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this 
sacrament, expresses thereby that he is mado^one with 
Christ, and incorporated in His members; and this is done 
by living faitli, which no one has who is in mortal sin. And 
therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament 



376 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 4 

while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament, and 
consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacra- 
ment : and therefore he sins mortally. 

Reply Ohj. i. When Christ appeared under His proper 
species, He did not give Himself to be touched by men as a 
sign of spiritual union with Himself, as He gives Himself to be 
received in this sacrament. And therefore sinners in touching 
Him under His proper species did not incur the sin of lying 
to Godlike things, as sinners do in receiving this sacrament. 

Furthermore, Christ still bore the likeness of the body of 
sin ; consequently He fittingly allowed Himself to be touched 
by sinners. But as soon as the body of sin was taken away 
by the glory of the Resurrection, he forbade the woman to 
touch Him, for her faith in Him was defective, accord- 
ing to John XX. 17: Do not touch Me, for I am not yet 
ascended to My Father, i.e., in your heart, as Augustine 
explains (Tract, cxxi. in Joan.). And therefore sinners, 
who lack living faith regarding Christ, are not allowed to 
touch this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Every medicine does not suit every stage 
of sickness ; because the tonic given to those who are recover- 
ing from fever would be hurtful to them if given while yet 
in their feverish condition. So likewise Baptism and 
Penance are as purgative medicines, given to take away 
the fever of sin ; whereas this sacrament is a medicine given 
to strengthen, and it ought not to be given except to them 
who are quit of sin. 

Reply Ohj. 3. By the greatest gifts Augustine understands 
the soul's virtues, which no one uses to evil purpose, as 
though they were principles of evil. Nevertheless some- 
times a man makes a bad use of them, as objects of an evil 
use, as is seen in those who are proud of their virtues. So 
likewise this sacrament, so far as the sacrament is concerned, 
is not the principle of an evil use, but the object thereof. 
Hence Augustine says (Tract. Ixii. in Joan.) : Many receive 
Chrisfs hody unworthily ; whence we are taught what need there 
is to heware of receiving a good thing evilly. . . . For hehold, 
of a good thing, received evilly, evil is wrought : just as on the 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 377 

other hand, in the Apostle's case, good was wrotight through 
evil well received, namely, by bearing patiently the sting of 
Satan. 

Reply Ohj. 4. Christ's body is not received by being seen, 
but only its sacrament, because sight does not penetrate 
to the substance of Christ's body, but only to the sacramental 
species, as stated above (Q. LXXVL, A. 7). But he who 
eats, receives not only the sacramental species, but likewise 
Christ Himself Who is under them. Consequently, no one 
is forbidden to behold Christ's body, when once he has 
received Christ's sacrament, namely, Baptism: whereas the 
non-baptized are not to be allowed even to see this sacra- 
ment, as is clear from Dionysius {Eccl. Hier. vii.). But 
only those are to be allowed to share in the eating who are 
united with Christ not merely sacramentally, but likewise 
really. 

Reply Ohj. 5. The fact of a man being unconscious of his 
sin can come about in two ways. First of all through his 
own fault, either because through ignorance of the law 
(which ignorance does not excuse him), he thinks something 
not to be sinful which is a sin, as for example if one guilty 
of fornication were to deem simple fornication not to be 
a mortal sin; or because he neglects to examine his con- 
science, which is opposed to what the Apostle says (i Cor. 
xi. 28): Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that 
bread, and drink of the chalice. And in this way neverthe- 
less the sinner who receives Christ's body commits sin, 
although unconscious thereof, because the very ignorance 
is a sin on his part. 

Secondly, it may happen without fault on his part, as, 
for instance, when he has sorrowed over his sin, but is not 
sufficiently contrite: and in such a case he does not sin in 
receiving the body of Christ, because a man cannot know 
for certain whether he is truly contrite. It suffices, how- 
ever, if he find in himself the marks of contrition, for 
instance, if he grieve over past sins, and propose to avoid 
them in the future."^ But if he be ignorant that what he 

* Cf. Rule of St. Augustine. 



378 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 4 

did was a sinful act, through ignorance of the fact, which 
excuses, for instance, if a man approach a woman whom he 
beheved to be his wife whereas she was not, he is not to be 
called a sinner on that account; in the same way if he has 
utterly forgotten his sin, general contrition suffices for 
blotting it out, as will be said hereafter (Suppl., Q. II., A. 3 
ad 2) ; hence he is no longer to be called a sinner. 



Fifth Article. 

whether to approach this sacrament with conscious- 
ness of sin is the gravest of all sins ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that to approach this sacrament 
with consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins; 
because the Apostle says (i Cor. xi. 27): Whosoever shall 
eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, 
shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord : upon 
which the gloss observes : He shall be punished as though he 
slew Christ. But the sin of them who slew Christ seems to 
have been most grave. Therefore this sin, whereby a man 
approaches Christ's table with consciousness of sin, appears 
to be the gravest. 

Obj. 2. Further, Jerome says in an Epistle (xlix.): What 
hast thou to do with women, thou that speakest familiarly with 
God at the altar ?* Say, priest, say, cleric, how dost thou 
kiss the Son of God with the same lips wherewith thou hast 
kissed the daughter of a harlot ? ' Judas, thou betrayest 
the Son of Man with a kiss !' And thus it appears that 
the fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did, 
whose sin was most grave. But there are many other sins 
which are graver than fornication, especially the sin of 
unbelief. Therefore the sin of every sinner approaching 
Christ's table is the gravest of all. 

Obj. 3. Further, spiritual uncleanness is more abominable 
to God than corporeal. But if anyone was to cast Christ's 

* The remaining part of the quotation is not from S. Jerome. 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 379 

body into mud or a cess-pool, his sin would be reputed a 
most grave one. Therefore, he sins more deeply by receiving 
it with sin, which is spiritual uncleanness, upon his soul. 

On the contrary, Augustine says on the words, // I had 
not come, and had not spoken to them, they would he without 
sin {Tract. Ixxxix. in Joan.), that this is to be understood 
of the sin of unbelief, in which all sins are comprised, and 
so the greatest of all sins appears to be, not this, but rather 
the sin of unbelief. 

/ answer that, As stated in the Second Part (I. -II., 
Q. LXXIIL, x\A. 3, 6; II.-IL, Q. LXXIIL, A. 3), one sin 
can be said to be graver than another in two ways: first 
of all essentially, secondly accidentally. Essentially, in 
regard to its species, which is taken from its object: and 
so a sin is greater according as that against which it 
is committed is greater. And since Christ's Godhead is 
greater than His humanity, and His humanity greater than 
the sacraments of His humanity, hence it is that those are 
the gravest sins which are committed against the Godhead, 
such as unbelief and blasphemy. The second degree of 
gravity is held by those sins which are committed against 
His humanity: hence it is written (Matth. xii. 32) : Whosoever 
shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall he for- 
given him ; hut he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, 
it shall not he forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the 
world to come. In the third place come sins committed against 
the sacraments, which belong to Christ's humanity ; and after 
these are the other sins committed against mere creatures. 

Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the 
sinner's part; for example, the sin which is the result of 
ignorance or of weakness is lighter than one arising from 
contempt, or from sure knowledge; and the same reason 
holds good of other circumstances. And according to this, 
the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in them 
who from actual contempt and with consciousness of sin 
approach this sacrament: but in others it is less grave; 
for instance, in those who from fear of their sin being dis- 
covered, approach this sacrament with consciousness of sin. 



38o THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 5 

So, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver 
than many others, yet it is not the greatest of all. 

Reply Obj. i. The sin of the unworthy recipient is com- 
pared to the sin of them who slew Christ, by way of simili- 
tude, because each is committed against Christ's body; but 
not according to the degree of the crime. Because the sin of 
Christ's slayers was much graver, first of all, because their sin 
was against Christ's body in its own species, while this sin is 
against it under sacramental species ; secondly, because their 
sin came of the intent of injuring Christ, while this does not. 

Reply Obj. 2. The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ's 
body is likened to Judas kissing Christ, as to the resemblance 
of the sin, because each outrages Christ with the sign of 
friendship; but not as to the extent of the sin, as was 
observed above (ad i). And this resemblance in crime 
applies no less to other sinners than to fornicators: because 
by other mortal sins, sinners act against the charity of 
Christ, of which this sacrament is the sign, and all the more 
according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin 
of fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacra- 
ment, because thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved 
by the flesh, which is a hindrance to the fervour of love 
required for this sacrament. 

However, the hindrance to charity itself weighs more 
than the hindrance to its fervour. Hence the sin of un- 
belief, which fundamentally severs a man from the unity 
of the Church, simply speaking, makes him to be utterly 
unfit for receiving this sacrament; because it is the sacra- 
ment of the Church's unity, as stated above (Q. LXVH., 
A. 2). Hence the unbeliever who receives this sacrament sins 
more grievously than the believer who is in sin ; and shows 
greater contempt towards Christ Who is in the sacrament, 
especially if he does not believe Christ to be truly in this 
sacrament; because, so far as lies in him, he lessens the 
holiness of the sacrament, and the power of Christ acting 
in it, and this is to despise the sacrament in itself. But the 
believer who receives the sacrament with consciousness of 
sin, by receiving it unworthily despises the sacrament, not 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 381 

in itself, but in its use. Hence the Apostle (i Cor. xi. 29) 
in assigning the cause of this sin, says, not discerning the 
body of the Lord, that is, not distinguishing it from other 
food: and this is what he does who disbelieves Christ's 
presence in this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The man who would throw this sacrament 
into the mire would be guilty of more heinous sin than 
another approaching the sacrament fully conscious of mortal 
sin. First of all, because he would intend to outrage the 
sacrament, whereas the sinner receiving Christ's body un- 
worthily has no such intent; secondly, because the sinner 
is capable of grace; hence he is more capable of receiving 
this sacrament than any irrational creature. Hence he 
would make a most revolting use of this sacrament who 
would throw it to dogs to eat, or fling it in the mire to be 
trodden upon. 

Sixth Article. 

whether the priest ought to deny the body of christ 
to the sinner seeking it ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — ■ 

Objection i. It seems that the priest should deny the body 
of Christ to the sinner seeking it. For Christ's precept is 
not to be set aside for the sake of avoiding scandal or on 
account of infamy to anyone. But (Matth. vii. 6) Our Lord 
gave this command : Give not that which is holy to dogs. Now 
it is especially casting holy things to dogs to give this sacra- 
ment to sinners. Therefore, neither on account of avoiding 
scandal or infamy should this sacrament be administered to 
the sinner who asks for it. 

Obj. 2. Further, one must choose the lesser of two evils. 
But it seems to be the lesser evil if the sinner incur infamy ; 
or if an unconsecrated host be given to him ; than for him 
to sin mortally by receiving the body of Christ. Conse- 
quently, it seems that the course to be adopted is either that 
the sinner seeking the body of Christ be exposed to infamy, 
or that an unconsecrated host be given to him. 



382 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 6 

Obf. 3. Further, the body of Christ is sometimes given to 
those suspected of crime in order to put them to proof. 
Because we read in the Decretals: It often happens that 
thefts are perpetrated in monasteries of monks ; wherefore we 
command that when the brethren have to exonerate themselves 
of such acts, that the abbot shall celebrate Mass, or someone 
else deputed by him, in the presence of the community ; and so, 
when the Mass is over, all shall communicate under these 
words : ' May the body of Christ prove thee to-day.^ x\nd 
further on : // any evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest, 
for each charge he must say Mass and communicate, and show 
that he is innocent of each act imputed. But secret sinners 
must not be disclosed, for, once the blush of shame is set 
aside, they will indulge the more in sin, as Augustine says 
{De Verbis Dom. ; cf. Serm. Ixxxii.). Consequently, Christ's 
body is not to be given to occult sinners, even if they ask 
for it. 

On the contrary, On Ps. xxi. 30: All the fat ones of the earth 
have eaten and have adored, Augustine says: Let not the dis- 
penser hinder the fat ones of the earth, i.e., sinners, /row eating 
at the table of the Lord. 

I answer that, A distinction must be made among sinners : 
some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence 
of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being 
denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. 
Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open 
sinners when they ask for it. Hence Cyprian writes to 
someone [Ep. Ixi.): You were so kind as to consider that I 
ought to be consulted regarding actors, and that magician who 
continues to practise his disgraceful arts among you; as to 
whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given 
to such with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming 
neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the 
Church's modesty and honour to be defiled by such shameful 
and infamous contagion. 

But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy 
Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. 
For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 383 

is admitted to the Lord's table, he may not be robbed of 
his right, except from some open cause. Hence on i Cor. 
V. II, If he who is called a brother among you, etc., Augustine's 
gloss remarks : We cannot inhibit any per son from Communion, 
except he has openly confessed, or has been named and con- 
victed by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal. Nevertheless a 
priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn 
the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approach- 
ing the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins 
and have been reconciled to the Church; because after re- 
pentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused 
even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death. 
Hence in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. xxxv.) we 
read: Reconciliation is not to be denied to stage-players or 
actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, after their con- 
version to God. 

Reply Obj. i. Holy things are forbidden to be given to 
dogs, that is, to notorious sinners: whereas hidden deeds 
may not be published, but are to be left to the Divine 
judgment. 

Reply Obj. 2. Although it is worse for the secret sinner to 
sin mortally in taking the body of Christ, rather than be 
defamed, nevertheless for the priest administering the body 
of Christ it is worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly de- 
faming the hidden sinner than that the sinner should sin 
mortally; because no one ought to commit mortal sin in 
order to keep another out of mortal sin. Hence Augustine 
says (Quaest. super Gen. xlii.): It is a most dangerous ex- 
change, for us to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil. 
But the secret sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than 
approach the Lord's table unworthily. 

Yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given 
in place of a consecrated one ; because the priest by so doing, 
so far as he is concerned, makes others, either the by- 
standers or the communicant, commit idolatry by believing 
that it is a consecrated host ; because, as Augustine says on 
Ps. xcviii. 5 : Let no one eat Christ's flesh, except he first adore 
it. Hence in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss., Ch. De 



384 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " g. 80. Art. 6 

Homine) it is said: Although he who refutes himself unworthy 
of the Sacrament, through consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, 
if he receive ; still he seems to offend more deeply who deceit- 
fully has presumed to simulate it. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Those decrees were abolished by contrary 
enactments of Roman Pontiffs: because Pope Stephen (V.) 
writes as follows : The Sacred Canons do not allow of a con- 
fession being extorted from any person by trial made by burn- 
ing iron or boiling water ; it belongs to our government to judge 
of public crimes committed, and that by means of confession 
made spontaneously , or by proof of witnesses : but private and 
unknown crimes are to be left to Him Who alone knows the 
hearts of the sons of men. And the same is found in the 
Decretals (Extra, De Purgationibus, Ch. Ex tuarum) . Because 
in all such practices there seems to be a tempting of God; 
hence such things cannot be done without sin. And it 
would seem graver still if anyone were to incur judgment 
of death through this sacrament, which was instituted as 
a means of salvation. Consequently, the body of Christ 
should never be given to anyone suspected of crime, as by 
way of examination. 

Seventh Article. 

whether the seminal loss that occurs during sleep 
hinders anyone from receiving this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that seminal loss does not hinder 
anyone from receiving the body of Christ : because no one 
is prevented from receiving the body of Christ except 
on account of sin. But seminal loss happens without 
sin: for Augustine says {Gen. ad lit. xii.) that the same 
image that comes into the mind of a speaker may present 
itself to the mind of the sleeper, so that the latter be unable to 
distinguish the image from the reality, and is moved carnally 
and with the result that usually follows such motions ; and 
there is as little sin in this as there is in speaking and 
therefore thinking about such things. Consequently these 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 3B5 

motions do not prevent one from receiving this sacra- 
ment. 

Ohj. 2. Further, Gregory says in a Letter to Augustine, 
Bishop of the Enghsh {Regist. xi.): Those who pay the debt 
of marriage not from lust, hut from desire to have children, 
should he left to their own judgment, as to whether they should 
enter the church and receive the mystery of Our Lord's body, 
after such intercourse: because they ought not to be forbidden from 
receiving it, since they have passed through the fire unscorched. 

From this it is evident that seminal loss even of one 
awake, if it be without sin, is no hindrance to receiving the 
body of Christ. Consequently, much less is it in the case 
of one asleep. 

06/. 3. Further, these movements of the flesh seem to 
bring with them only bodily uncleanness. But there are 
other bodily defilements which according to the Law forbade 
entrance into the holy places, yet which under the New Law 
do not prevent receiving this sacrament: as, for instance, 
in the case of a woman after child-birth, or in her periods, 
or suffering from issue of blood, as Gregory writes to x\ugus- 
tine. Bishop of the English (loc. cit.). Therefore it seems 
that neither do these movements of the flesh hinder a man 
from receiving this sacrament. 

Obj. 4. Further, venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the 
sacrament, nor is mortal sin after repentance. But even 
supposing that seminal loss arises from some foregoing 
sin, whether of intemperance, or of bad thoughts, for the 
most part such sin is venial; and if occasionally it be mortal, 
a man may repent of it by morning and confess it. Conse- 
quently, it seems that he ought not to be prevented from 
receiving this sacrament. . 

Obj. 5. Further, a sin against the Fifth Commandment 
is greater than a sin against the Sixth. But if a man 
dream that he has broken the Fifth or Seventh or any other 
Commandment, he is not on that account debarred from 
receiving this sacrament. Therefore it seems that much 
less should he be debarred through defilement resulting 
from a dream against the Sixth Commandment. 

III. 3 25 



1/ 



386 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 7 

On the contrary, It is written (Lev. xv. 16): The man from 
whom the seed of copulation goeth out . . . shall he unclean until 
evening. But for the unclean there is no approaching to 
the sacraments. Therefore, it seems that owing to such 
defilement of the flesh a man is debarred from taking this 
which is the greatest of the sacraments. 

/ answer that, There are two things to be weighed regard- 
ing the aforesaid movements: one on account of which 
they necessarily prevent a man from receiving this sacra- 
ment; the other, on account of which they do so, not of 
necessity, but from a sense of propriety. 

Mortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from par- 
taking of this sacrament: and although these movements 
during sleep, considered in themselves, cannot be a mortal 
sin, nevertheless, owing to their cause, they have mortal 
sin connected with them: which cause, therefore, must 
be investigated. Sometimes they are due to an external 
spiritual cause, viz., the deception of the demons, who can 
stir up phantasms, as was stated in the First Part (Q. CXL, 
A. 3), through the apparition of which, these movements 
occasionally follow. Sometimes they are due to an internal 
spiritual cause, such as previous thoughts. At other times 
they arise from some internal corporeal cause, as from 
abundance or weakness of nature, or even from surfeit of 
meat or drink. Now every one of these three causes can 
be without sin at all, or else with venial sin, or with mortal 
sin. If it be without sin, or with venial sin, it does not 
necessarily prevent the receiving of this sacrament, so as 
to make a man guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: 
but should it be with mortal sin, it prevents it of necessity. 

For such illusions on the part of demons sometimes come 
from one's not striving to receive fervently ; and this can be 
either a mortal or a venial sin. At other times it is due to 
malice alone on the part of the demons who wish to keep 
men from receiving this sacrament. So we read in the 
Conferences of the Fathers (Cassian, — Collat. xxii.) that 
when a certain one always suffered thus on those feast- 
days on which he had to receive Communion, his superiors, 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 387 

discovering that there was no fault on his part, ruled that 
he was not to refrain from communicating on that account, 
and the demoniacal illusion ceased. 

In like fashion previous evil thoughts can sometimes be 
without any sin whatever, as when one has to think of such 
things on account of lecturing or debating ; and if it be done 
without concupiscence and delectation, the thoughts will 
not be unclean but honest ; and yet defilement can come of 
such thoughts, as is clear from the authority of Augustine 
{Ohj. i). At other times such thoughts come of concu- 
piscence and delectation, and should there be consent, it 
will be a mortal sin: otherwise it will be a venial sin. 

In the same way too the corporeal cause can be without 
sin, as when it arises from bodily debility, and hence some 
individuals suffer seminal loss without sin even in their 
wakeful hours; or it can come from the abundance of 
nature: for, just as blood can flow without sin, so also can 
the semen which is superfluity of the blood, according to 
the Philosopher {De Gener. Animal, v.). But occasionally it 
is with sin, as when it is due to excess of food or drink. 
And this also can be either venial or mortal sin; although 
more frequently the sin is mortal in the case of evil thoughts 
on account of the proneness to consent, rather than in the 
case of consumption of food and drink. Hence Gregory, 
writing to Augustine, Bishop of the English (loc. cit.), says 
that one ought to refrain from Communion when this arises 
from evil thoughts, but not when it arises from excess of 
food or drink, especially if necessity call for Communion. 
So, then, one must judge from its cause whether such bodily 
defilement of necessity hinders the receiving of this sacra- 
ment. 

At the same time a sense of decency forbids Communion 
on two accounts. The first of these is always verified, viz., 
the bodily defilement, with which, out of reverence for the 
sacrament, it is unbecoming to approach the altar (and 
hence those who wish to touch any sacred object, wash 
their hands) : except perchance such uncleanness be perpetual 
or of long standing, such as leprosy or issue of blood, or 



388 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 7 

anything else of the kind. The other reason is the mental 
distraction which follows after the aforesaid movements, 
especially when they take place with unclean imaginings. 
Now this obstacle, which arises from a sense of decency, 
can be set aside owing to any necessity, as Gregory says 
(ibid.) : As when perchance either a festival day calls for it, or 
necessity compels one to exercise the ministry because there is 
no other priest at hand. 

Reply Obj. i. A person is hindered necessarily, only by 
mortal sin, from receiving this sacrament : but from a sense 
of decency one may be hindered through other causes, as 
stated above. 

Reply Obj. 2. Conjugal intercourse, if it be without sin, 
(for instance, if it be done for the sake of begetting offspring, 
or of paying the marriage debt), does not prevent the re- 
ceiving of this sacrament for any other reason than do 
those movements in question which happen without sin, 
as stated above; namely, on account of the defilement to 
the body and distraction to the mind. On this account 
Jerome expresses himself in the following terms in his com- 
mentary on Matthew (Epist. xxviii., among S. Jerome's 
works) : // the loaves of Proposition might not be eaten by them 
who had known their wives carnally, how much less may this 
bread which has come down from heaven be defiled and touched 
by them who shortly before have been in conjugal embraces ? 
It is not that we condemn marriages, but that at the time when 
we are going to eat the flesh of the Lamb, we ought not to indulge 
in carnal acts. But since this is to be understood in the 
sense of decency, and not of necessity, Gregory says that 
such a person is to be left to his own judgment. But if, as 
Gregory says {ibid.), it be not desire of begetting offspring, but 
lust that prevails, then such a one should be forbidden to 
approach this sacrament. 

Reply Obj. 3. As Gregory says in his Letter quoted above 
to Augustine, Bishop of the English, in the old Testament 
some persons were termed polluted figuratively, which the 
people of the New Law understand spiritually. Hence 
such bodily uncleannesses, if perpetual or of long standing, 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 389 

do not hinder the receiving of this saving sacrament, as 
they prevented approaching those figurative sacraments; 
but if they pass speedily, hke the uncleanness of the aforesaid 
movements, then from a sense of fittingness they hinder 
the receiving of this sacrament during the day on which 
it happens. Hence it is written (Deut. xxiii. 10): If there 
he among you any man, that is defiled in a dream hy night, he 
shall . go forth out of the camp ; and he shall not return before 
he he washed with water in the evening. 

Reply Ohj. 4. Although the stain of guilt be taken away 
by contrition and confession, nevertheless the bodily de- 
filement is not taken av/ay, nor the mental distraction 
which follows therefrom. 

Reply Ohj. 5. To dream of homicide brings no bodilj^ 
uncleanness, nor such distraction of mind as fornication, 
on account of its intense delectation; still if the dream of 
homicide comes of a cause sinful in itself, especially if it be 
mortal sin, then owing to its cause it hinders the receiving 
of this sacrament. 

Eighth Article. 

whether food or drink taken beforehand hinders 
the receiving of this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — ■ 

Objection!.. It seems that food or drink taken beforehand 
does not hinder the receiving of this sacrament. For this 
sacrament was instituted by Our Lord at the supper. But 
when the supper was ended Our Lord gave the sacrament 
to His disciples, as is evident from Luke xxii. 20, and from 
I Cor. xi. 25. Therefore it seems that we ought to take this 
sacrament after receiving other food. 

Ohj. 2. Further, it is written (i Cor. xi. 33): When you 
come together to eat, namely, the Lord's body, wait for one 
another ; if any man he hungry, let him eat at home : and thus 
it seems that after eating at home a man may eat Christ's 
body in the Church. 

Ohj. 3. Further, we read in the (3rd) Council of Carthage, 



390 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 8 

{Can. xxix.): Let the sacraments of the altar be celebrated only 
by men who are fasting, with the exception of the anniversary 
day on which the Lord^s Supper is celebrated. Therefore, at 
least on that day, one may receive the body of Christ after 
partaking of other food. 

Obj. 4. Further, the taking of water or medicine, or of 
any other food or drink in very slight quantity, or of the 
remains of food continuing in the mouth, neither breaks 
the Church's fast, nor takes away the sobriety required for 
reverently receiving this sacrament. Consequently, one is 
not prevented by the above things from receiving this 
sacrament, 

Obj. 5. Further, some eat and drink late at night, and 
possibly after passing a sleepless night receive the sacred 
mysteries in the morning when the food is not digested. 
But it would savour more of moderation if a man were to 
eat a little in the morning and afterwards receive this 
sacrament about the ninth hour, since also there is occasion- 
ally a longer interval of time. Consequently, it seems that 
such taking of food beforehand does not keep one from this 
sacrament. 

Obj. 6. Further, there is no less reverence due to this 
sacrament after receiving it, than before. But one may 
take food and drink after receiving the sacrament. There- 
fore one may do so before receiving it. 

On the contrary, Augustine says {Resp. ad Januar., — Ep. 
liv.): It has pleased the Holy Ghost that, out of honour for this 
great sacrament, the Lord^s body should enter the mouth of a 
Christian before other foods. 

I answer that, A thing may prevent the receiving of this 
sacrament in two ways: first of all in itself, like mortal sin, 
which is repugnant to what is signified by this sacrament, 
as stated above (A. 4): secondly, on account of the Church's 
prohibition ; and thus a man is prevented from taking this 
sacrament after receiving food or drink, for three reasons. 
First, as Augustine says [loc. cit.), out of respect for this 
sacrament, so that it may enter into a mouth not yet con- 
taminated by any food or drink. Secondly, because of its 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 391 

signification, i.e., to give us to understand that Christ, Who 
is the reahty of this sacrament, and His charity, ought to be 
first of all established in our hearts, according to Matth. vi. 33 : 
Seek first the kingdom of God. Thirdly, on account of the 
danger of vomiting and intemperance, which sometimes 
arise from over-indulging in food, as the Apostle says 
(i Cor. xi. 2i) : One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk. 

Nevertheless the sick are exempted from this general 
rule, for they should be given Communion at once, even after 
food, should there be any doubt as to their danger, lest they 
die without Communion, because necessity has no law. 
Hence it is said in the Canon de Consecratione : Let the priest 
at once take Communion to the sick person, lest he die without 
Communion. 

Reply Ohj. i. As Augustine says in the same book, the 
fact that Our Lord gave this sacrament after taking food is no 
reason why the brethren should assemble after dinner or supper 
in order to partake of it, or receive it at meal-time, as did those 
whom the Apostle reproves and corrects. For our Saviour, 
in order the more strongly to commend the depth of this mystery, 
wished to fix it closely in the hearts and memories of the disciples; 
and on that account He gave no command for it to be received 
in that order, leaving this to the apostles, to whom He was about 
to entrust the government of the churches. 

Reply Obj. 2. The text quoted is thus paraphrased by the 
gloss : // any man be hungry and loath to await the rest, let 
him partake of his food at home, that is, let him fill himself 
with earthly bread, without partaking of the Eucharist after- 
wards. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The wording of this decree is in accordance 
with the former custom observed by some of receiving the 
body of Christ on that day after breaking their fast, so as 
to represent the Lord's supper. But this is now abrogated; 
because as Augustine says [loc. cit.), it is customary through- 
out the whole world for Christ's body to be received before 
breaking the fast. 

Reply Obj. 4. As stated in the Second Part (H.-IL. 
Q. CXLVIL, A. 6 ad 2), there are two kinds of fast. First, 



392 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 8 

there is the natural fast, which impUes privation of every- 
thing taken beforehand by way of food or drink: and such 
fast is required for this sacrament for the reasons given 
above. And therefore it is never lawful to take this sacra- 
ment after taking water, or other food or drink, or even 
medicine, no matter how small the quantity may be. Nor 
does it matter whether it nourishes or not, whether it be 
taken by itself or with other things, provided it be taken 
by way of food or drink. But the remains of food left in 
the mouth, if swallowed accidentally, do not hinder receiving 
this sacrament, because they are swallowed not by way of 
food but by way of saliva. The same holds good of the 
unavoidable remains of the water or wine wherewith the 
mouth is rinsed, provided they be not swallowed in great 
quantity, but mixed with saliva. 

Secondly, there is the fast of the Church, instituted for 
afflicting the body : and this fast is not hindered by the things 
mentioned (in the objection), because they do not give much 
nourishment, but are taken rather as an alterative. 

Reply Ohj. 5. That this sacrament ought to enter into the 
mouth of a Christian before any other food must not be under- 
stood absolutely of all time, otherwise he who had once 
eaten or drunk could never afterwards take this sacrament : 
but it must be understood of the same day; and although 
the beginning of the day varies according to different 
systems of reckoning (for some begin their day at noon, 
some at sunset, others at midnight, and others at sunrise), 
the Roman Church begins it at midnight. Consequently, 
if any person takes anything by way of food or drink 
after midnight, he may not receive this sacrament on 
that day; but he can do so if the food was taken before 
midnight. Nor does it matter, so far as the precept is 
concerned, whether he has slept after taking food or 
drink, or whether he has digested it; but it does matter 
as to the mental disturbance which one suffers from want 
of sleep or from indigestion, for, if the mind be much 
disturbed, one becomes unfit for receiving this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 6. The greatest devotion is called for at the 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 393 

moment of receiving this sacrament, because it is then that 
the effect of the sacrament is bestowed, and such devotion 
is hindered more by what goes before it than by what comes 
after it. And therefore it was ordained that men should 
fast before receiving the sacrament rather than after. 
Nevertheless there ought to be some interval between 
receiving this sacrament and taking other food. Conse- 
quently, both the Post communion prayer of thanksgiving 
is said in the. Mass, and the communicants say their own 
private prayers. 

However, according to the ancient Canons, the following 
ordination was made by Pope Clement (I.), [Ep. ii.), If the 
Lord's portion he eaten in the morning, the ministers who have 
taken it shall fast until the sixth hour, and if they take it at 
the third or fourth hour, they shall fast until evening. For 
in olden times, the priest celebrated Mass less frequently, 
and with greater preparation: but now, because the sacred 
mysteries have to be celebrated oftener, the same could not 
be easily observed, and so it has been abrogated by contrary 
custom. 



Ninth Article. 

whether those who have not the use of reason ought 
to receive this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that those who have not the use 
of reason ought not to receive this sacrament. For it is 
required that man should approach this sacrament with 
devotion and previous self-examination, according to 
I Cor. xi. 28: Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of 
that bread, and drink of the chalice. But this is not possible 
for those who are devoid of reason. Therefore this sacra- 
ment should not be given to them. 

Obj. 2. Further, among those who have not the use of 
reason are the possessed, who are called energumens. But 
such persons are kept from even beholding this sacrament, 
according to Dionysius [Eccl. Hier. iii.). Therefore this 



394 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 9 

sacrament ought not to be given to those who have not the 
use of reason. 

Ohj. 3. Further, among those that lack the use of reason 
are children, the most innocent of all. But this sacrament 
is not given to children. Therefore much less should it be 
given to others deprived of the use of reason. 

On the contrary, We read in the First Council of Orange, 
(Canon 13) ; and the same is to be found in the Decretals 
(xxvi., 6): All things that pertain to piety are to he given 
to the insane : and consequently, since this is the sacrament 
of piety, it must be given to them. 

/ answer that, Men are said to be devoid of reason in two 
ways. First, when they are feeble-minded, as a man who 
sees dimly is said not to see: and since such persons can 
conceive some devotion towards this sacrament, it is not to 
be denied them. 

In another way men are said not to possess fully the 
use of reason. Either, then, they never had the use of reason, 
and have remained so from birth ; and in that case this sacra- 
ment is not to be given to them, because in no way has there 
been any preceding devotion towards the sacrament: or 
else, they were not always devoid of reason, and then, if 
when they formerly had their wits they showed devotion 
towards this sacrament, it ought to be given to them in 
the hour of death; unless danger be feared of vomiting or 
spitting it out. Hence we read in the acts of the Fourth 
Council of Carthage (Canon 76) ; and the same is to be found 
in the Decretals (xxvi., 6): If a sick man ask to receive the 
sacrament of Penance, and if, when the priest who has been sent 
for comes to him, he he so weak as to he unahle to speak, or 
becomes delirious, let them, who heard him ask, hear witness, 
and let him receive the sacrament of Penance ; then if it he 
thought that he is going to die shortly, let him he reconciled by 
imposition of hands, and let the Eucharist he placed in his 
mouth. 

Reply Ohj. 1. Those lacking the use of reason can have 
devotion towards the sacrament; actual devotion in some 
cases, and past in others. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Dionysius is speaking there of energumens 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 395 

who are not yet baptized, in whom the devil's power is not 
yet extinct, since it thrives in them through the presence 
of original sin. But as to baptized persons who are vexed 
in body by unclean spirits, the same reason holds good of 
them as of others who are demented. Hence Cassian says 
[Collat. vii.) : We do not remember the most Holy Communion 
to have ever been denied by our elders to them who are vexed 
by unclean spirits. 

Reply Obj. 3. The same reason holds good of newly born 
children as of the insane who never have had the use of 
reason: consequently, the sacred mysteries are not to be 
given to them. Although certain Greeks do the contrary, 
because Dionysius says [Eccl. Hier. ii.) that Holy Com- 
munion is to be given to them who are baptized; not under- 
standing that Dionysius is speaking there of the Baptism of 
adults. Nor do they suffer any loss of life from the fact 
of Our Lord saying (John vi. 54), Except you eat the flesh of 
the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life 
in you ; because, as Augustine writes to Boniface (Pseudo- 
Beda Comment, in i Cor. x. 17), then every one of the faith- 
ful becomes a partaker, i.e., spiritually, of the body and blood 
of the Lord, when he is made a member of Christ's body in 
Baptism. But when children once begin to have some use 
of reason so as to be able to conceive some devotion for the 
sacrament, then it can be given to them. 



Tenth Article, 
whether it is lawful to receive this sacrament daily ? 

We proceed thus to the Tenth A rticle : — 

Objection i. It does not appear to be lawful to receive 
this sacrament daily, because, as Baptism shows forth Our 
Lord's Passion, so also does this sacrament. Now one may 
not be baptized several times, but only once, because Christ 
died once only for our sins, according to i Pet. iii. 18. There- 
fore, it seems unlawful to receive this sacrament daily. 

Obj. 2. Further, the reality ought to answer to the figure. 
But the Paschal Lamb, which was the chief figure of this 



396 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 10 

sacrament, as was said above (Q. LXXIII., A. 9) was eaten 
only once in the year; while the Church once a year com- 
memorates Christ's Passion, of which this sacrament is the 
memorial. It seems, then, that it is lawful to receive this 
sacrament not daily, but only once in the year, 

Ohj. 3. Further, the greatest reverence is due to this 
sacrament as containing Christ. But it is a token of rever- 
ence to refrain from receiving this sacrament; hence the 
Centurion is praised for saying (Matth. viii. 8), Lord, I am 
not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof; also 
Peter, for saying (Luke v. 8), Depart from me, for I am a 
sinful man, Lord. Therefore, it is not praiseworthy for 
a man to receive this sacrament daily. 

Ohj. 4. Further, if it were a praiseworthy custom to receive 
this sacrament frequently, then the oftener it were taken 
the more praiseworthy it would be. But there would be 
greater frequency if one were to receive it several times 
daily; and yet this is not the custom of the Church. 
Consequently, it does not seem praiseworthy to receive it 
daily. 

Ohj. 5. Further, the Church by her statutes intends to 
promote the welfare of the faithful. But the Church's 
statute only requires Communion once a year ; hence it is 
enacted (Extra, De Pcenit. et Remiss, xii.) : Let every person 
of either sex devoutly receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at 
least at Easter ; unless hy the advice of his parish priest, and 
for some reasonahle cause, he considers he ought Jo refrain 
from receiving for a time. Consequently, it is not praise- 
worthy to receive this sacrament daily. 

On the contrary, Augustine says [De Verb. Dom., Serm. 
XX viii. ) : This is our daily bread; take it daily, that it may 
profit thee daily. 

I answer that, There are two things to be considered 
regarding the use of this sacrament. The first is on the part 
of the sacrament itself, the virtue of which gives health to 
men; and consequently it is profitable to receive it daily so 
as to receive its fruits daily. Hence Ambrose says [De 
Sacram. iv.) : //, whenever Christ's hlood is shed, it is shed 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 397 

for the forgiveness of sins, I who sin often, should receive it 
often: I need a frequent remedy. The second thing to be 
considered is on the part of the recipient, who is required 
to approach this sacrament with great reverence and 
devotion. Consequently, if anyone finds that he has these 
dispositions every day, he will do well to receive it daily. 
Hence, Augustine, after saying. Receive daily, that it may 
profit thee daily, adds : So live, as to deserve to receive it daily. 
But because many persons are lacking in this devotion, on 
account of the many drawbacks both spiritual and corporal 
from which they suffer, it is not expedient for all to approach 
this sacrament every day; but they should do so as often 
as they find themselves properly disposed. Hence it is 
said in De Eccles. Dogmat. liii. : / neither praise nor blame 
daily reception of the Eucharist. 

Reply Ohj. i. In the sacrament of Baptism a man is 
conformed to Christ's death, by receiving His character 
within him. And therefore, as Christ died but once, so 
a man ought to be baptized but once. But a man does not 
receive Christ's character in this sacrament; He receives 
Christ Himself, Whose virtue endures for ever. Hence it 
is written (Heb. x. 14) : By one oblation He hath perfected 
for ever them that are sanctified. Consequently, since man 
has daily need of Christ's health-giving virtue, he may 
commendably receive this sacrament every day. 

And since Baptism is above all a spiritual regeneration, 
therefore, as a man is born naturally but once, so ought he 
by Baptism to be reborn spiritually but once, as Augustine 
says {Tract, xi. in Joan.), commenting on John iii. 4, How 
can a man be born again, when he is grown old ? But this' 
sacrament is spiritual food; hence, just as bodily food is 
taken every day, so is it a good thing to receive this sacra- 
ment every day. Hence it is that Our Lord (Luke xi. 3), 
teaches us to pray. Give us this day our daily bread : in ex- 
plaining which words Augustine observes {De Verb. Dom., 
loc. cit.) : If you receive it, i.e., this sacrament, everyday, every 
day is to-day for thee, and Christ rises again every day in 
thee, for when Christ riseth it is to-day. 



398 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 10 

Reply Ohj. 2. The Paschal Lamb was the figure of this 
sacrament chiefly as to Christ's Passion represented therein; 
and therefore it was partaken of once a year only, since 
Christ died but once. And on this account the Church 
celebrates once a year the remembrance of Christ's Passion. 
But in this sacrament the memorial of His Passion is given 
by way of food which is partaken of daily ; and therefore in 
this respect it is represented by the manna which was given 
daily to the people in the desert. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Reverence for this sacrament consists in 
fear associated with love; consequently reverential fear of 
God is called filial fear, as was said in the Second Part 
(I.-IL, Q. LXVII., A. 4 a^ 2 ; IL-IL, Q. XIX., AA. 9, 11, 12) ; 
because the desire of receiving arises from love, while the 
humility of reverence springs from fear. Consequently, 
each of these belongs to the reverence due to this sacrament ; 
both as to receiving it daily, and as to refraining from it 
sometimes. Hence Augustine says [Ep. liv.) : // one says, 
that the Eucharist should not be received daily, while another 
maintains the contrary, let each one do as according to his 
devotion he thinketh right ; for Zaccheus and the Centurion 
did not contradict one another while the one received the Lord 
with joy, whereas the other said : *' Lord, I am not worthy 
thatrThou shouldst enter under my roof" ; since both honoured 
our Saviour, though not in the same way. But love and hope, 
whereunto the Scriptures constantly urge us, are preferable 
to fear. Hence, too, when Peter had'^aid, Depart from me, 
for I am a sinful man, Lord, Jesus answered: Fear not. 

Reply Obj. 4. Because Our Lord said (Luke xi. 3), Give 
us this day our daily bread, we are not on that account to 
communicate several times daily, for, by one daily com- 
munion the unity of Christ's Passion is set forth. 

Reply Obj. 5. Various statutes have emanated according 
to the various ages of the Church. In the primitive Church, 
when the devotion of the Christian faith was more flourishing, 
it was enacted that the faithful should communicate daily: 
hence Pope Anaclete says [Ep. i.) : When the consecration 
is finished, let all communicate who do not wish to cut themselves 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 399 

off from the Church ; for so the apostles have ordained, and 
the holy Roman Church holds. Later on, when the fervour 
of faith relaxed, Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, 
Canon 1.) gave permission that all should communicate, if 
not more frequently , at least three times in the year, namely y 
at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas. Pope Soter Hkewise 
(Second Council of Chalon, Canon xlvii.) declares that Com- 
munion should be received on Holy Thursday, as is set forth 
in the Decretals {De Consecratione, dist. 2). Later on, when 
iniquity abounded and charity grew cold (Matth. xxiv. 12), 
Pope Innocent III. commanded that the faithful should 
communicate at least once a year, namely, at Easter. How- 
ever, in De Eccl. Dogmat. xxiii. the faithful are counselled 
to communicate on all Sundays. 



Eleventh Article. 

whether it is lawful to abstain altogether from 

communion ? 

We proceed thus to the Eleventh Article : — 

Objection 1. It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether 
from Communion. Because the Centurion is praised for 
saying (Matth. viii. 8) : Lord, I am not worthy that Thou 
shouldst enter under my roof ; and he who deems that he 
ought to refrain entirely from Communion can be compared 
to the Centurion, as stated above (A. 10 ad 3). Therefore, 
since we do not read of Christ entering his house, it seems 
to be lawful for any individual to abstain from Communion 
his whole life long. 

Obj. 2. Further, it is lawful for anyone to refrain from 
what is not of necessity for salvation. But this sacrament 
is not of necessity for salvation, as was stated above 
(Q. LXXIIL, A. 3). Therefore it is permissible to abstain 
from Communion altogether. 

Obj. 3. Further, sinners are not bound to go to Com- 
munion : hence Pope Fabian [loc. cit., A. 10 ad 5) after saying. 
Let all communicate thrice each year, adds : Except those who 



400 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. h 

are hindered by grievous crimes. Consequently, if those who 
are not in the state of sin are bound to go to Communion, 
it seems that sinners are better off than good people, which 
is unfitting. Therefore, it seems lawful even for the godly 
to refrain from Communion. 

On the contrary, Our Lord said (John vi. 54) : Except ye 
eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you 
shall not have life in you. 

I answer that, As stated above (A. i), there are two ways 
of receiving this sacrament, namely, spiritually and sacra- 
men tally. Now it is clear that all are bound to eat it at least 
spiritually, because this is to be incorporated in Christ, as was 
said above (Q. LXXIIL, A. 3 ad i). Now spiritual eating 
comprises the desire or yearning for receiving this sacrament, 
as was said above (A. i ad 3, A. 2). Therefore, a man 
cannot be saved without desiring to receive this sacrament. 

Now a desire would be vain except it were fulfilled when 
opportunity presented itself. Consequently, it is evident 
that a man is bound to receive this sacrament, not only by 
virtue of the Church's precept, but also by virtue of the 
Lord's command (Luke xxii. 19) : Do this in memory of Me, 
But by the precept of the Church there are fixed times for 
fulfilling Christ's command. 

Reply Obj. i. As Gregory says: He is truly humble, who 
is not obstinate in rejecting what is commanded for his good. 
Consequently, humility is not praiseworthy if anyone 
abstains altogether from Communion against the precept 
of Christ and the Church. Again the Centurion was not 
commanded to receive Christ into his house. 

Reply Obj. 2. This sacrament is said not to be as necessary 
as Baptism, with regard to children, who can be saved 
without the Eucharist, but not without the sacrament of 
Baptism: both, however, are of necessity with regard to 
adults. 

Reply Obj. 3. Sinners suffer great loss in being kept back 
from receiving this sacrament, so that they are not better 
off on that account; and although while continuing in their 
sins they are not on that account excused from trans- 



THE USE OF THIS SACRAMENT 401 

gressing the precept, nevertheless, as Pope Innocent (III.) 
says, penitents, who refrain on the advice of their priest, are 
excused. 



Twelfth Article. 

whether it is lawful to receive the body of christ 

without the blood ? 

We proceed thus to the Twelfth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems unlawful to receive the body of 
Christ without the blood. For Pope Gelasius says [cf. 
De Consecr. ii.) : We have learnt that some persons after taking 
only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the chalice 
of the sacred blood. I know not for what superstitiotis motive 
they do this : therefore let them either receive the entire sacra- 
ments, or let them be withheld from the sacrament altogether. 
Therefore it is not lawful to receive the body of Christ with- 
out His blood. 

Obj. 2. Further, the eating of the body and the drinking 
of the blood are required for the perfection of this sacrament, 
as stated above (Q. LXXIIL, A. 2; Q. LXXVL, A. 2adj), 
Consequently, if the body be taken without the blood, it 
will be an imperfect sacrament, which seems to savour of 
sacrilege; hence Pope Gelasius adds [cf. Obj. i), because the 
dividing of one and the same mystery cannot happen without 
a great sacrilege. 

Obj. 3. Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory 
of Our Lord's Passion, as stated above (Q. LXXIIL, AA. 4, 5 ; 
Q. LXXIV., A. i), and is received for the health of souL 
But the Passion is expressed in the blood rather than in 
the body; moreover, as stated above (Q. LXXIV., A. i), 
the blood is offered for the health of the soul. Consequently, 
one ought to refrain from receiving the body rather than 
the blood. Therefore, such as approach this sacrament 
ought not to take Christ's body without His blood. 

On the contrary, It is the custom of many churches for the 
body of Christ to be given to the communicant without His 
blood. 

III. 3 26 



402 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 80. Art. 12 

/ answer that, Two points should be observed regarding 
the use of this sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, 
the other on the part of the recipients. On the part of 
the sacrament it is proper for both the body and the blood 
to be received, since the perfection of the sacrament lies in 
both, and consequently, since it is the priest's duty both 
to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought on no 
account to receive Christ's body without the blood. 

But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence 
and caution are called for, lest anything happen which 
is unworthy of so great a mystery. Now this could especially 
happen in receiving the blood, for, if incautiously handled, 
it might easily be spilt. And because the multitude of the 
Christian people increased, in which there are old, young, 
and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to 
observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account 
it is a prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to 
be offered to the reception of the people, but to be received 
by the priest alone. 

Reply Ohj. i. Pope Gelasius is speaking of priests, who, 
as they consecrate the entire sacrament, ought to communi- 
cate in the entire sacrament. For, as we read in the 
(Twelfth) Council of Toledo, What kind of a sacrifice is that, 
wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have a share ? 

Reply Ohj. 2. The perfection of this sacrament does not 
lie in the use of the faithful, but in the consecration of the 
matter. And hence there is nothing derogatory to the per- 
fection of this sacrament; if the people receive the body 
without the blood, provided that the priest who consecrates 
receive both. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Our Lord's Passion is represented in the 
very consecration of this sacrament, in which the body ought 
not to be consecrated without the blood. But the body can 
be received by the people without the blood: nor is this 
detrimental to the sacrament. Because the priest both 
offers and consumes the blood on behalf of all; and Christ 
is fully contained under either species, as was shown above 
(Q.LXXVI.,A. 2). 



QUESTION LXXXI. 

OF THE USE WHICH CHRIST MADE OF THIS SACRAMENT 

AT ITS INSTITUTION. 

{In Four Articles.) 

We have now to consider the use which Christ made of this 
sacrament at its institution; under which heading there 
are four points of inquiry : (i) Whether Christ received His 
own body and blood ? (2) Whether He gave it to Judas ? 
(3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it 
passible or impassible ? (4) What would have been the 
condition of Christ's body under this sacrament, if it had 
been reserved or consecrated during the three days He lay 
dead ? 



First Article, 
whether christ received his own body and blood ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that Christ did not receive His own 
body and blood, because nothing ought to be asserted of 
either Christ's doings or sayings, which is not handed down 
by the authority of Sacred Scripture. But it is not narrated 
in the gospels that He ate His own body or drank His own 
blood. Therefore we must not assert this as a fact. 

Ohj. 2. Further, nothing can be within itself except 
perchance by reason of its parts, for instance, as one part 
is in another, as is stated in Phys. iv. But what is eaten and 
drunk is in the eater and drinker. Therefore, since the entire 
Christ is under each species of the sacrament, it seems im- 
possible for Him to have received this sacrament. 

403 



404 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 8i. Art. i 

Ohj. 3. Further, the receiving of this sacrament is twofold, 
namely, spiritual and sacramental. But the spiritual was 
unsuitable for Christ, as He derived no benefit from the sacra- 
ment; and in consequence so was the sacramental, since it 
is imperfect without the spiritual, as was observed above 
(Q. LXXX., A. i). Consequently, in no way did Christ 
partake of this sacrament. 

On the contrary, Jerome says {Ad Hedih., Ep. xxx.), The 
Lord Jesus Christ, Himself the guest and banquet, is both 
the partaker and what is eaten. 

I answer that. Some have said that Christ during the supper 
gave His body and blood to His disciples, but did not par- 
take of it Himself. But this seems improbable. Because 
Christ Himself was the first to fulfil what He required others 
to observe : hence He willed first to be baptized when 
imposing Baptism upon others: as we read in Acts i. i: 
Jesus began to do and to teach. Hence He first of all took His 
own body and blood, and afterwards gave it to be taken by 
the disciples. And hence the gloss upon Ruth iii. 7, When 
he had eaten and drunk, says: Christ ate and drank at the 
supper, when He gave to the disciples the sacrament of His 
body and blood. Hence, 'because the children partook"^ of His 
flesh and blood. He also hath been partaker in the same.' 

Reply Obj. i. We read in the Gospels how Christ took 
the bread . . . and the chalice ; but it is not to be understood 
that He took them merely into His hands, as some say ; but 
that He took them in the same way as He gave them to 
others to take. Hence when He said to the disciples, Take 
ye and eat, and again. Take ye and drink, it is to be under- 
stood that He Himself, in taking it, both ate and drank. 
Hence some have composed this rhyme : 

The King at supper sits, the twelve as guests He greets, 
Clasping Himself in His hands, the food Himself now eats. 

Reply Obj. 2. As was said above (Q. LXXVL, A. 5), Christ 
as contained under this sacrament stands in relation to 
place, not according to His own dimensions, but according 

* Vulg., are partakers (Heb. ii. 14). 



HOW CHRIST USED THIS SACRAMENT 405 

to the dimensions of the sacramental species ; so that Christ 
is Himself in every place where those species are. And 
because the species were able to be both in the hands and 
the mouth of Christ, the entire Christ could be in both His 
hands and mouth. Now this could not come to pass were 
His relation to place to be according to His proper dimensions. 
Reply Ohj. 3. As was stated above (Q. LXXIX., A. i ad 2), 
the effect of this sacrament is not merely an increase of 
habitual grace, but furthermore a certain actual delecta- 
tion of spiritual sweetness. But although grace was not 
increased in Christ through His receiving this sacrament, 
yet He had a certain spiritual delectation from the new 
institution of this sacrament. Hence He Himself said 
(Luke xxii. 15) : With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch 
with you, which words Eusebius explains of the new mystery 
of the New Testament, which He gave to the disciples. 
And therefore He ate it both spiritually and sacr amen tally, 
inasmuch as He received His own body under the sacrament, 
which sacrament of His own body He both understood and 
prepared ; yet differently from others who partake of it both 
sacramentally and spiritually, for these receive an increase 
of grace, and they have need of the sacramental signs for 
perceiving its truth. 

Second Article, 
whether christ gave his body to judas ? 

We proceed thus to the Second A rticle : — 

Objection i. It seems that Christ did not give His body 
to Judas. Because, as we read (Matth. xxvi. 29), Our Lord, 
after giving His body and blood to the disciples, said to 
them: / will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, 
until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom 
of My Father. From this it appears that those to whom 
He had given His body and blood were to drink of it again 
with Him. But Judas did not drink of it afterwards with 
Him. Therefore he did not receive Christ's body and blood 
with the other disciples. 



4o6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 8i. Art. 2 

Ohj. 2. Further, what the Lord commanded, He Himself 
fulfilled, as is said in Acts i. i : Jesus began to do and to 
teach. But He gave the command (Matth. vii. 6) : Give 
not that which is holy to dogs. Therefore, knowing Judas to 
be a sinner, seemingly He did not give him His body and 
blood. 

Obj. 3. Further, it is distinctly related (John xiii. 26) that 
Christ gave dipped bread to Judas. Consequently, if He 
gave His body to him, it appears that He gave it him in the 
morsel, especially since we read {ibid.) that after the morsel, 
Satan entered into him. And on this passage Augustine 
says [Tract. Ixii. in Joan.) : From this we learn how we should 
beware of receiving a good thing in an evil way. . . . For if 
he be ' chastised ' who does ' not discern ' — i.e., distinguish — 
the body of the Lord from other meats, how must he be ' con- 
demned ' who, feigning himself a friend, comes to His table a 
foe ? But (Judas) did not receive Our Lord's body with 
the dipped morsel; thus Augustine commenting on John 
xiii. 26, When He had dipped the bread. He gave it to Judas, 
the son of Simon the Iscariot (Vulg., — to Judas Iscariot, the 
son of Simon), says [loc. cit.) : Judas did not receive Christ's 
body then, as some think who read carelessly. Therefore it seems 
that Judas did not receive the body of Christ. 

On the contrary, Chrysostom says [Horn. Ixxxii. in Matth.) : 
Judas was not converted while partaking of the sacred 
mysteries : hence on both sides his crime becomes the more 
heinous, both because imbued with such a purpose he approached 
the mysteries, and because he became none the better for 
approaching, neither from fear, nor from the benefit received, 
nor from the honour conferred on him. 

I answer that, Hilary, in commenting on Matth. xxvi. 17, 
held that Christ did not give His body and blood to Judas. 
And this would have been quite proper, if the malice of 
Judas be considered. But since Christ was to serve us as a 
pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching 
authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion 
with the others without an accuser and evident proof; lest 
the Church's prelates might have an example for doing the 



HOW CHRIST USED THIS SACRAMENT 407 

like, and lest Judas himself being exasperated might take 
occasion of sinning. Therefore, it remains to be said that 
Judas received Our Lord's body and blood with the other 
disciples, as Dionysius says {Eccl. Hier. iii.), and Augustine 
{Tract. Ixii. in Joan.). 

Reply Ohj. i. This is Hilary's argument, to show that 
Judas did not receive Christ's body. But it is not cogent; 
because Christ is speaking to the disciples, from whose 
company Judas separated himself: and it was not Christ 
that excluded him. Therefore Christ for His part drinks 
the wine even with Judas in the kingdom of God; but 
Judas himself repudiated this banquet. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The wickedness of Judas was known to 
Christ as God; but it was unknown to Him, after the manner 
in which men know it. Consequently, Christ did not repel 
Judas from Communion; so as to furnish an example that 
such secret sinners are not to be repelled by other priests. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Without any doubt Judas did not receive 
Christ's body in the dipped bread; he received mere bread. 
Yet as Augustine observes (ihid.), perchance the feigning of 
Judas is denoted hy the dipping of the hread ; just as some things 
are dipped to he dyed. If, however, the dipping signifies here 
anything good (for instance, the sweetness of the Divine 
goodness, since bread is rendered more savoury by being 
dipped) , then, not undeservedly, did condemnation follow his 
ingratitude for that same good. And owing to that ingratitude, 
what is good hecame evil to him, as happens to them who 
receive Christ's body unworthily. 

And as Augustine says {ihid.), it must he understood that 
Our Lord had already distrihuted the sacrament of His hody 
and hlood to all His disciples, among whom was Judas also, 
as Luke narrates : and after that, we came to this, where, 
according to the relation of John, Our Lord, hy dipping and 
handing the morsel, does most openly declare His hetrayer. 



4o8 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 8i. Art. 3 



Third Article. 

WHETHER CHRIST RECEIVED AND <;AVE TO THE DISCIPLES 
HIS IMPASSIBLE BODY ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that Christ both received and gave 
to the disciples His impassible body. Because on Matth. 
xvii. 2, He was transfigured before them, the gloss says: He 
gave to the disciples at the supper that body which He had 
through nature, but neither mortal nor passible. And again, 
on Lev. ii. 5, if thy oblation be from the frying-pan, the gloss 
says: The Cross mightier than all things made Christ's flesh 
fit for being eaten, which before the Passion did not seem so 
suited. But Christ gave His body as suited for eating. 
Therefore He gave it just as it was after the Passion, that is, 
impassible and immortal. 

Obj. 2. Further, every passible body suffers by contact 
and by being eaten. Consequently, if Christ's body was 
passible, it would have suffered both from contact and 
from being eaten by the disciples. 

Obj. 3. Further, the sacramental words now spoken by 
the priest in the person of Christ are not more powerful 
than when uttered by Christ Himself. But now by virtue 
of the sacramental words it is Christ's impassible and 
immortal body which is consecrated upon the altar. There- 
fore, much more so was it then. 

On the contrary. As Innocent III. says [De Sacr. Alt. Myst. 
iv.). He bestowed on the disciples His body such as it was. 
But then He had a passible and a mortal body. Therefore, 
He gave a passible and mortal body to the disciples. 

/ answer that, Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III., ibid.) 
maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at 
various times the four properties of a glorified body — 
namely, subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from 
the closed womb of the Virgin; agility, when He walked 
dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the Transfiguration; 
and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave 



HOW CHRIST USED THIS SACRAMENT 409 

His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to 
this He gave His body in an impassible and immortal 
condition to His disciples. 

But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, 
concerning which we have already stated what should be held 
(Q. XXVIIL, A. 2 ^^ 3; Q. XLV., A. 2), nevertheless the 
above opinion regarding impassibility is inadmissible. For 
it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was 
then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received 
by them under the sacramental species. But as seen 
in its own species it was not impassible; nay more, it 
was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was 
Christ's body impassible when given under the sacramental 
species. 

Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible 
manner, that which was passible of itself; just as that was 
there invisibly which of itself was visible. For as sight 
requires that the body seen be in contact with the adjacent 
medium of sight, so does passion require contact of the 
suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's body, 
according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above 
(A. 1 ad 2; Q. LXXVL, A. 5), is not compared with its 
surroundings through the intermediary of its own dimen- 
sions, whereby bodies touch each other, but through the 
dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is those 
species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ's 
own body. 

Reply Ohj. i. Christ is said not to have given His mortal 
and passible body at the supper, because He did not give it 
in mortal and passible fashion. But the Cross made His 
flesh adapted for eating, inasmuch as this sacrament repre- 
sents Christ's Passion. 

Reply Ohj. 2. This argument would hold, if Christ's body, 
as it was passible, were also present in a passible manner in 
this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As stated above (Q. LXXVT, A. 4), the 
accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by real 
concomitance, but not by the power of the sacrament, 



410 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 8i. Art. 3 

whereby the substance of Christ's body comes to be there. 
And therefore the power of the sacramental words extends 
to this, that the body — i.e., Christ's — is under this sacrament, 
whatever accidents really exist in it. 



Fourth Article. 

whether, if this sacrament had been reserved in a 
pyx, or consecrated at the moment of christ's 
death by one of the apostles, christ himself 
would have died there ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that if this sacrament had been re- 
served in a pyx at the moment of Christ's death, or had 
then been consecrated by one of the apostles, that Christ 
would not have died there. For Christ's death happened 
through His Passion. But even then He was in this sacra- 
ment in an impassible manner. Therefore, He could not 
die in this sacrament. 

Ohj. 2. Further, on the death of Christ, His blood was 
separated from the body. But His flesh and blood are to- 
gether in this sacrament. Therefore He could not die in 
this sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, death ensues from the separation of the 
soul from the body. But both the body and the soul of 
Christ are contained in this sacrament. Therefore Christ 
could not die in this sacrament. 

On the contrary, The same Christ Who was upon the cross 
would have been in this sacrament. But He died upon the 
cross. Therefore, if this sacrament had been reserved. He 
would have died therein. 

/ answer that, Christ's body is substantially the same in 
this sacrament, as in its proper species, but not after the same 
fashion; because in its proper species it comes in contact 
with surrounding bodies by its own dimensions : but it does 
not do so as it is in this sacrament, as stated above (A. 3). 
And therefore, all that belongs to Christ, as He is in Himself, 



HOW CHRIST USED THIS SACRAMENT 411 

can be attributed to Him both in His proper species, and 
as He exists in the sacrament ; such as to Hve, to die, to grieve, 
to be animate or inanimate, and the hke; while all that 
belongs to Him in relation to outward bodies, can be attrib- 
uted to Him as He exists in His proper species, but not 
as He is in this sacrament; such as to be mocked, to be 
spat upon, to be crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. 
Hence some have composed this verse: 

Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils 
But cannot feel the piercing of the thorns and nails. 

Reply Ohj. i. As was stated above, suffering belongs to a 
body that suffers in respect of some extrinsic body. And 
therefore Christ, as in this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet 
He can die. 

Reply Ohj. 2. As was said above (Q. LXXVL, A. 2), in 
virtue of the consecration, the body of Christ is under the 
species of bread, while His blood is under the species of 
wine. But now that His blood is not really separated from 
His body; by real concomitance, both His blood is present 
with the body under the species of the bread, and His body 
together with the blood under the species of the wine. 
But at the time when Christ suffered, when His blood was 
really separated from His body, if this sacrament had been 
consecrated, then the body only would have been present 
under the species of the bread, and the blood only under 
the species of the wine. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As was observed above (Q. LXXVL, A. i, 
ad i), Christ's soul is in this sacrament by real concomitance ; 
because it is not without the body: but it is not there in 
virtue of the consecration. And therefore, if this sacra- 
ment had been consecrated then, or reserved, when His 
soul was really separated from His body, Christ's soul would 
not have been under this sacrament, not from any defect 
in the form of the words, but owing to the different disposi- 
tions of the thing contained. 



QUESTION LXXXII. 

OF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 
{In Ten Articles.) 

We now proceed to consider the minister of this sacrament : 
under which head there are ten points for om" inquiry: 
(i) Whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this 
sacrament ? (2) Whether several priests can at the same 
time consecrate the same host ? (3) Whether it belongs to 
the priest alone to dispense this sacrament ? (4) Whether 
it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from com- 
municating ? (5) Whether a priest in sin can perform this 
sacrament ? (6) Whether the mass of a wicked priest is of 
less value than that of a good one ? (7) Whether those 
who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated, can per- 
form this sacrament ? (8) Whether degraded priests can 
do so ? (9) Whether communicants receiving at their 
hands are guilty of sinning ? (10) Whether a priest may 
lawfully refrain altogether from celebrating ?* 



First Article. 

whether the consecration of this sacrament belongs 

to a priest alone ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 
Objection i. It seems that the consecration of this sacra- 
ment does not belong exclusively to a priest. Because it 

* This is the order observed by S. Thomas in writing the Articles ; 
but in writing this prologue, he placed Article 10 immediately after 
Article 4 [cf. Leonine ed.). 

412 



THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 413 

was said above (Q. LXXVIIL, A. 4) that this sacrament is 
consecrated in virtue of the words, which are the form of this 
sacrament. But those words are not changed, whether 
spoken by a priest or by anyone else. Therefore, it seems 
that not only a priest, but anyone else, can consecrate this 
sacrament. 

Obj. 2. Further, the priest performs this sacrament in 
the person of Christ. But a devout layman is united with 
Christ through charity. Therefore, it seems that even a 
layman can perform this sacrament. Hence Chrysostom 
[Op. imperf. in,Matth., Horn, xliii.) says that every holy man 
is a priest. 

Obj. 3. Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation 
of mankind, so also is this sacrament, as is clear from what 
was said above (Q. LXXIV., A. i ; Q. LXXIX., A. 2). But 
a lajnnan can also baptize, as was stated above (Q. LXVIL, 
A. 3). Consequently, the consecration of this sacrament is 
not proper to a priest. 

Obj. 4. Further, this sacrament is completed in the con- 
secration of the matter. But the consecration of other 
matters such as the chrism, the holy oil, and blessed oil, 
belongs exclusively to a bishop ; yet their consecration does 
not equal the dignity of the consecration of the Eucharist, 
in which the entire Christ is contained. Therefore it belongs, 
not to a priest, but only to a bishop, to perform this sacra- 
ment. 

On the contrary, Isidore says in an Epistle to Ludifred 
(Decret., dist. 25): It belongs to a priest to consecrate this 
sacrament of the Lord's body and blood upon God's altar. 

I answer that, As stated above (Q. LXXVIIL, AA. i, 4), 
such is the dignity of this sacrament that it is performed 
only as in the person of Christ. Now whoever performs any 
act in another's stead, must do so by the power bestowed 
by such a one. But as the power of receiving this sacrament 
is conceded by Christ to the baptized person, so likewise the 
power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ's behalf is 
bestowed upon the priest at his ordination : for thereby 
he is put upon a level with them to whom the Lord said 



414 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 82. Art. i 

(Luke xxii. 19) : Do this for a commemoration of Me. There- 
fore, it must be said that it belongs to priests to accompHsh 
this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. i. The sacramental power is in several things, 
and not merely in one : thus the power of Baptism lies both 
in the words and in the water. Accordingly the conse- 
crating power is not merely in the words, but likewise in 
the power delivered to the priest in his consecration and 
ordination, when the bishop says to him: Receive the power 
of offering up the Sacrifice in the Church for the living as well 
as for the dead. For instrumental power lies in several 
instruments through which the chief agent acts. 

Reply Ohj. 2. A devout layman is united with Christ by 
spiritual union through faith and charity, but not by sacra- 
mental power: consequently he has a spiritual priesthood 
for offering spiritual sacrifices, of which it is said (Ps. 1. 19) : 
A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit ; and (Rom. xii. i) : 
Present your bodies a living sacrifice. Hence, too, it is 
written (i Pet. ii. 5) : A holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual 
sacrifices. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The receiving of this sacrament is not of 
such necessity as the receiving of Baptism, as is evident 
from what was said above (Q. LXV., AA. 3, 4; Q. LXXX., 
A. II ad 2). And therefore, although a lajmian can baptize 
in case of necessity, he cannot perform this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 4. The bishop receives power to act on Christ's 
behalf upon His mystical body, that is, upon the Church; 
but the priest receives no such power in his consecration, 
although he may have it by commission from the bishop. 
Consequently all such things as do not belong to the mystical 
body are not reserved to the bishop, such as the consecration 
of this sacrament. But it belongs to the bishop to deliver, 
not only to the people, but likewise to priests, such things 
as serve them in the fulfilment of their respective duties. 
And because the blessing of the chrism, and of the holy oil, 
and of the oil of the sick, and other consecrated things, such 
as altars, churches, vestments, and sacred vessels, makes 
3uch things fit for use in performing the sacraments which 



THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 415 

belong to the priestly duty, therefore such consecrations 
are reserved to the bishop as the head of the whole ecclesi- 
astical order. 



Second Article. 

whether several priests can consecrate one and the 

same host ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that several priests cannot conse- 
crate one and the same host. For it was said above 
(Q. LXVIl., A. 6), that several cannot at the same time 
baptize one individual. But the power of a priest conse- 
crating is not less than that of a man baptizing. Therefore, 
several priests cannot consecrate one host at the same 
time. 

Ohj. 2. Further, what can be done by one, is superfluously 
done by several. But there ought to be nothing superfluous 
in the sacraments. Since, then, one is sufficient for conse- 
crating, it seems that several cannot consecrate one host. 

Ohj. 3. Further, as Augustine says {Tract, xxvi. in Joan.), 
this is the sacrament of unity. But multitude seems to be 
opposed to unity. Therefore it seems inconsistent with this 
sacrament for several priests to consecrate the same host. 

On the contrary, It is the custom of some Churches for 
priests newly ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop 
ordaining them. 

/ answer that, As stated above (A. i), when a priest is 
ordained he is placed on a level with those who received 
consecrating power from Our Lord at the Supper. And 
therefore, according to the custom of some Churches, as the 
apostles supped when Christ supped, so the newly ordained 
co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop. Nor is the con- 
secration, on that account, repeated over the same host, 
because as Innocent III. says [De Sac. Alt. Myst. iv.), the 
intention of all should he directed to the same instant of the 
consecration. 

Reply Ohj. i . We do not read of Christ baptizing with the 



4i6 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 82. Art. 2 

apostles when He committed to them the duty of baptizing ; 
consequently there is no parallel. 

Reply Ohj. 2. If each individual priest were acting in his' 
own power, then other celebrants would be superfluous, 
since one would be sufficient. But whereas the priest does 
not consecrate except as in Christ's stead; and since many 
are one in Christ (Gal. iii. 28) ; consequently it does not 
matter whether this sacrament be consecrated by one or 
by many, except that the rite of the Church must be ob- 
served. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesi- 
astical unity, which is brought about by many being one in 
Christ. 



Third Article. 

whether the dispensing of this sacrament belongs to 

a priest alone ? 

We proceed thus to the Third Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament 
does not belong to a priest alone. For Christ's blood belongs 
to this sacrament no less than His body. But Christ's blood 
is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said 
to the blessed Sixtus [Office of S. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins) : 
Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have 
entrusted the dispensing of the Lord's blood. Therefore, with 
equal reason the dispensing of Christ's body does not belong 
to priests only. 

Obj. 2. Farther, priests are the appointed ministers of 
the sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the 
consecration of the matter, and not in the use, to which the 
dispensing belongs. Therefore it seems that it does not 
belong to a priest to dispense the Lord's body. 

Obj. 3. Further, Dionysius says [Eccl. Hier., iii., iv.) that 
this sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. 
But it belongs, not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the 
chrism. Therefore likewise, to dispense this sacrament 
belongs to the bishop and not to the priest. 



THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 417 

On the contrary, It is written {De Consecr., dist. 12) : It 
has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord' s 
body to a layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick : The 
synod therefore forbids such presumption to contimie ; and 
let the priest himself communicate the sick. 

I answer that, The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to 
the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said 
above (A. i), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But 
as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He 
gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, 
as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the priest, 
so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, 
because the priest is the appointed intermediary between 
God and the people; hence' as it belongs to him to offer the 
people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver conse- 
crated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence 
towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is 
consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are con- 
secrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this 
sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch 
it, except from n^ecessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon 
the ground, or else in some other case of urgency. 

Reply Ohj. i. The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly 
order, has a certain share in the latter's duties, so that he 
may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of 
necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest. First of 
all, because Christ's blood is contained in a vessel, hence 
there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser, as 
Christ's body is touched. — Secondly, because the blood 
denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; 
hence it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water 
denotes the people. And because deacons are between 
priest and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the 
competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of 
the body. 

Reply Ohj. 2. For the reason given above, it belongs to the 
same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the 

III, 3 27 



418 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 82. Art. 3 

priest's power of enlightening {Eccl. Hier. v.), inasmuch as 
he dispenses the blood; so the priest shares in the perfective 
dispensing [ibid.) of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses 
this sacrament whereby man is perfected in himself by union 
with Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is per- 
fected in relation to others, are reserved to the bishop. 



Fourth Article. 

whether the priest who consecrates is bound to 
receive this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the priest who consecrates is 
not bound to receive this sacrament. Because, in the other 
consecrations, he who consecrates the matter does not use 
it, just as the bishop consecrating the chrism is not anointed 
therewith. But this sacrament consists in the consecration 
of the matter. Therefore, the priest performing this sacra- 
ment need not use the same, but may lawfully refrain from 
receiving it. 

Obj. 2. Further, in the other sacraments the minister does 
not give the sacrament to himself: for no one can baptize 
himself, as stated above (Q. LXVL, A. 5 a^ 4). But as 
Baptism is dispensed in due order, so also is this sacrament. 
Therefore the priest who consecrates this sacrament oughi 
not to receive it at his own hands. 

Obj. 3. Further, it sometimes happens that Christ's body 
appears upon the altar under the guise of flesh, and the 
blood under the guise of blood; which are unsuited for food 
and drink: hence, as was said above (Q. LXXV., A. 5), it 
is on that account that they are given under another species, 
lest they beget revulsion in the communicants. Therefore 
the priest who consecrates is not always bound to receive 
this sacrament. 

On the contrary, We read in the acts of the (Twelfth) 
Council of Toledo (Can. v.), and again (De Consecr., dist. 2) : 
It must be strictly observed that as often as the priest sacrifices 



THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 419 

the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ upon the altar, 
he must himself be a partaker of Christ's body and blood. 

I answer that, As stated above (Q. LXXIX., AA. 5, 7), the 
Eucharist is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. 
Now whoever offers sacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice, 
because the outward sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner 
sacrifice whereby he offers himself to God, as Augustine 
says {De Civ. Dei x.). Hence by partaking of the sacrifice 
he shows that the inner one is likewise his. In the same 
way also, by dispensing the sacrifice to the people he shows 
that he is the dispenser of Divine gifts, of which he ought 
himself to be the first to partake, as Dionysius says [Eccl. 
Hier. iii.). Consequently, he ought to receive before dis- 
pensing it to the people. Accordingly we read in the chapter 
mentioned above (Arg., On the contrary): 'What kind of 
sacrifice is that wherein not even the sacrificer is known to have 
a share ?' But it is by partaking of the sacrifice that he 
has a share in it, as the iVpostle says (i Cor. x. 18): Are 
not they that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar ? 
Therefore it is necessary for the priest, as often as he con- 
secrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity. 

Reply Obj. i. The consecration of chrism or of anything 
else is not a sacrifice, as the consecration of the Eucharist is : 
consequently there is no parallel. 

Reply Obj. 2. The sacrament of Baptism is accomplished in 
the use of the matter, and consequently no one can baptize 
himself, because the same person cannot be active and passive 
in a sacrament. Hence neither in this sacrament does the 
priest consecrate himself, but he consecrates the bread and 
wine, in which consecration the sacrament is completed. 
But the use thereof follows the sacrament, and therefore 
there is no parallel. 

Reply Obj. 3. If Christ's body appears miraculously upon 
the altar under the guise of flesh, or the blood under the guise 
of blood, it is not to be received. For Jerome says upon 
Leviticus (cf. De Consecr., dist. 2): It is lawful to eat of this 
sacrifice which is wonderfully performed in memory of Christ : 
but it is not lawful for anyone to cat of that one which Christ 



420 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 82. Art. 4 

offered on the altar of the cross. Nor does the priest trans- 
gress on that account, because mhaculous events are not 
subject to human laws. Nevertheless the priest would be 
well advised to consecrate again and receive the Lord's 
body and blood. 



Fifth Article. 

whether a wicked priest can consecrate the 

eucharist ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that a wicked priest cannot conse- 
crate the Eucharist. For Jerome, commenting on Sophon. 
iii. 4, says: The priests who perform the Eucharist, and who 
distribute Our Lord^s blood to the people, act wickedly against 
Christ's law, in deeming that the Eucharist is consecrated by 
a prayer rather than by a good life ; and that only the solemn 
prayer is requisite, and not the priest' s merits : of whom it is 
said : ' Let not the priest, in whatever defilement he may be, 
approach to offer oblations to the Lord ' (Lev. xxi. 21 ; Sept. 
version) . But the sinful priest, being defiled, has neither the 
life nor the merits befitting this sacrament. Therefore a 
sinful priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist. 

Obj. 2. Further, Damascene says [De Fide Orthod. iv.) 
that the bread and wine are changed super naturally into the 
body and blood of Our Lord, by the coming of the Holy Ghost. 
But Pope Gelasius (L) says {Ep. ad Elphid., cf. Decret. i., 
q. i.) : How shall the Holy Spirit, when invoked, come for 
the consecration of the Divine Mystery, if the priest invoking 
him be proved full of guilty deeds ? Consequently, the 
Eucharist cannot be consecrated by a wicked priest. 

Obj. 3. Further, this sacrament is consecrated by the 
priest's blessing. But a sinful priest's blessing is not effi- 
cacious for consecrating this sacrament, since it is written 
(Mai. ii. 2) : I will curse your blessings. Again, Dionysius 
says in his Epistle (viii.) to the monk Demophilus: He who 
is not enlightened has completely fallen away from the priestly 
order ; and I wonder that such a man dare to employ his 



THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 421 

hands in priestly actions^ and in the person of Christ to utter, 
over the Divine symbols, his unclean infamies, for I will not 
call them prayers. 

On the contrary, Augustine (Paschasius) says [De Corp. 
Dam. xii.) : Within the Catholic Church, in the mystery of 
the Lord's body and blood, nothing greater is done by a 
good priest, nothing less by an evil priest, because it is not 
by the merits of the consecrator that the sacrament is accom- 
plished, but by the Creator's word, and by the power of the 
Holy Spirit. 

I answer that, As was said above (Az\. i, 3), the priest 
consecrates this sacrament not by his own power, but as 
the minister of Christ, in Wliose person he consecrates this 
sacrament. But from the fact of being wicked he does not 
cease to be Christ's minister; because Our Lord has good 
and wicked ministers or servants. Hence (Matth. xxiv. 45) 
Our Lord says: Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise 
servant ? and afterwards He adds : But if that evil servant 
shall say in his heart, etc. And the Apostle (i Cor. iv. i) 
says: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ ; 
and afterwards he adds: / am not conscious to myself of 
anything ; yet am I not hereby justified. He was therefore 
certain that he was Christ's minister; yet he was not certain 
that he was a just man. Consequently, a man can be 
Christ's minister even though he be not one of the just. 
And this belongs to Christ's excellence. Whom, as the true 
God, things both good and evil serve, since they are ordained 
by His providence for His glory. Hence it is evident that 
priests, even though they be not godly, but sinners, can 
consecrate the Eucharist. 

Reply Ob'j. i. In those words Jerome is condemning the 
error of priests who believed they could consecrate the 
Eucharist worthily, from the mere fact of being priests, 
even though they were sinners; and Jerome condemns this 
from the fact that persons defiled are forbidden to approach 
the altar; but this docs not prevent the sacrifice, which they 
offer, from being a true sacrifice, if they do approach. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Previous to the words quoted, Pope Gelasius 



422 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 82. Art. 5 

expresses himself as follows: That most holy rite, which 
contains the Catholic discipline, claims for itself such reverence 
that no one may dare to approach it except with clean con- 
science. From this it is evident that his meaning is that 
the priest who is a sinner ought not to approach this sacra- 
ment. Hence when he resumes, How shall the Holy Spirit 
come when summoned, it must be understood that He comes, 
not through the priest's merits, but through the power of 
Christ, Whose words the priest utters. 

Reply Obj. 3. As the same action can be evil, inasmuch as 
it is done with a bad intention of the servant; and good 
from the good intention of the master; so the blessing of a 
sinful priest, inasmuch as he acts unworthily, is deserving 
of a curse, and is reputed an infamy and a blasphemy, and 
not a prayer; whereas, inasmuch as it is pronounced in 
the person of Christ, it is holy and efficacious. Hence it is 
said with significance: I will curse your blessings. 



Sixth Article. 

WHETHER THE MASS OF A SINFUL PRIEST IS OF LESS \VORTH 
THAN THE MASS OF A GOOD PRIEST ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the mass of a sinful priest is 
not of less worth than that of a good priest. For Pope 
Gregory says in the Register: Alas, into what a great snare 
they fall who believe that the Divine and hidden mysteries can 
be sanctified more by some than by others ; since it is the one 
and the same Holy Ghost Who hallows those mysteries in a 
hidden and invisible manner. But these hidden mysteries 
are celebrated in the mass. Therefore the mass of a sinful 
priest is not of less value than the mass of a good priest. 

Obj. 2. Further, as Baptism is conferred by a minister 
through the power of Christ Who baptizes, so likewise this 
sacrament is consecrated in the person of Christ. But 
Baptism is no better when conferred by a better priest, as 
was said above (Q. LXIV., A. i ad 2). Therefore neither is 
a mass the better, which is celebrated by a better priest. 



THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 423 

Ohj. 3. Further, as the merits of priests differ in the point 
of being good and better, so they hkewise differ in the point 
of being good and bad. Consequently, if the mass of a better 
priest be itself better, it follows that the mass of a bad priest 
must be bad. Now this is unreasonable, because the malice 
of the ministers cannot affect Christ's mysteries, as Augus- 
tine says in his work on Baptism [Contra Donat. xii.). 
Therefore neither is the mass of a better priest the better. 

On the contrary, It is stated in (Decretal) i., q. i: The 
worthier the priest, the sooner is he heard in the needs for which 
he prays. 

I answer that, There are two things to be considered in 
the mass; namely, the sacrament itself, which is the chief 
thing; and the prayers which are offered up in the mass 
for the quick and the dead. So far as the mass itself is 
concerned, the mass of a wicked priest is not of less value 
than that of a good priest, because the same sacrifice is 
offered by both. 

Again, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered 
in two respects: first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy 
from the devotion of the priest interceding, and in this respect 
there is no doubt but that the mass of the better priest is 
the more fruitful. In another respect, inasmuch as the 
prayer is said by the priest in the mass in the place of the 
entire Church, of which the priest is the minister ; and this 
ministry remains even in sinful men, as was said above 
(A. 5) in regard to Christ's ministry. Hence, in this respect 
the prayer even of the sinful priest is fruitful, not only 
that which he utters in the mass, but likewise all those he 
recites in the ecclesiastical offices, wherein he takes the 
place of the Church. On the other hand, his private prayers 
are not fruitful, according to Prov. xxviii. 9: He that turneth 
away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall he an 
abomination. 

Reply Ohj. i. Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of 
the Divine sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 2. In the sacrament of Baptism solemn prayers 
are not made for all the faithful, as in the mass; therefore 



424 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " o. 82. Art. 6 

there is no parallel in this respect. There is, however, a 
resemblance as to the effect of the sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 3. By reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, 
Who communicates to each one the blessings of Christ's 
members on account of their being united in charity, 
the private blessing in the mass of a good priest is fruitful 
to others. But the private evil of one man cannot hurt 
another, except the latter, in some way, consent, as Augus- 
tine'sa^^s [Contra Parnien. ii.). 



Seventh Article. 

whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated 
persons can consecrate ? 

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that heretics, schismatics, and ex- 
communicated persons are not able to consecrate the 
Eucharist. For Augustine says (Liber sentent. Prosperi, xv.) 
that there is no such thing as a true sacrifice outside the Catholic 
Church: and Pope Leo (I.) says [Ep. Ixxx.; cf. Decret. i., 
q. i) : Elsewhere [i.e., than in the Church which is Christ's 
body) there is neither valid priesthood nor true sacrifice. But 
heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are 
severed from the Church. Therefore they are unable to 
offer a true sacrifice. 

Obj. 2. Further {ibid., caus. i., q. i). Innocent (I.) is 
quoted as saying: Because we receive the laity of the Avians 
and other pestilential persons, if they seem to repent ; it does 
not follow that their clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or 
of any other ministerial office, for we allow them to confer 
nothing save Baptism. But none can consecrate the 
Eucharist, unless he have the dignity of the priest- 
hood. Therefore heretics and the like cannot consecrate 
the Eucharist. 

Obj. 3. Further, it does not seem feasible for one outside 
the Church to act on behalf of the Church. But when the 
priest consecrates the Eucharist, he does so in the person of 



THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 425 

the entire Church, as is evident from the fact of his putting 
up all prayers in the person of the Church. Therefore, it 
seems that those who are outside the Church, such as those 
who are heretics, schismatics, and excommunicate, are not 
able to consecrate the Eucharist. 

On the contrary, Augustine says {Contra Parmen. ii.) : 
Just as Baptism remains in them, i.e., in heretics, schismatics, 
and those who are excommunicate, so do their Orders remain 
intact. Now, by the power of his ordination, a priest can 
consecrate the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems that heretics, 
schismatics, and those who are excommunicate, can con- 
secrate the Eucharist, since their Orders remain entire. 

I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schis- 
matics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale 
of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein 
they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra 
Parmen. ii.), it is one thing to lack something utterly, and 
another to have it improperly ; and in like fashion, it is one 
thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly. 
Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the 
power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained 
to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed ; but they 
use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from 
the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But 
such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have 
neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But 
that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what 
Augustine says [ibid.), that when they return to the unity 
of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in 
their Orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist 
is an act which follows the power of Order, such persons as 
are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or ex- 
communication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, 
which on being consecrated by them contains Christ's true 
body and blood ; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so ; 
and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the 
sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice. 

Reply Obj. i. Such and similar authorities are to be 



426 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 82. Art. 7 

understood in this sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly 
outside the Church. Hence outside the Church there can be 
no spiritual sacrifice that is a true sacrifice with the truth 
of its fruit, although it be a true sacrifice with the truth 
of the sacrament; thus it was stated above (Q. LXXX., A. 3), 
that the sinner receives Christ's body sacramentally, but 
not spiritually. 

Reply Ohj. 2. Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred 
by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully 
baptize in case of necessity ; but in no case can they 
lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other 
sacraments. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The priest, in reciting the prayers of the 
mass, speaks instead of the Church, in whose unity he 
remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks as 
in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by the power 
of his Orders. Consequently, if a priest severed from the 
unity of the Church celebrates mass, not having lost the 
power of Order, he consecrates Christ's true body and blood; 
but because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his 
prayers have no efhcacy. 



Eighth Article. 

whether a degraded priest can consecrate this 

sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the Eighth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that a degraded priest cannot con- 
secrate this sacrament. For no one can perform this sacra- 
ment except he have the power of consecrating. But the 
priest who has been degraded has no power of consecrating, 
although he has the power of baptizing (App. Gratiani). 
Therefore it seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate 
the Eucharist. 

Obj. 2. Further, he who gives can take away. But the 
bishop in ordaining gives to the priest the power of conse- 
crating. Therefore he can take it away by degrading him. 



THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 427 

Ohj. 3. Further, the priest, by degradation, loses either 
the power of consecrating, or the use of such power. But 
he does not lose merely the use, for thus the degraded one 
would lose no more than one excommunicated, who also 
lacks the use. Therefore it seems that he loses the power 
to consecrate, and in consequence that he cannot perform 
this sacrament. 

On the contrary, Augustine {Contra Parmen. ii.) proves 
that apostates from the faith are not deprived of their 
Baptism, from the fact that it is not restored to them when 
they return repentant; and therefore it is deemed that it 
cannot he lost. But in like fashion, if the degraded man 
be restored, he has not to be ordained over again. Conse- 
quently, he has not lost the power of consecrating, and so 
the degraded priest can perform this sacrament. 

/ answer that, The power of consecrating the Eucharist 
belongs to the character of the priestly Order. But every 
character is indelible, because it is given with a kind of con- 
secration, as was said above (Q. LXIIT, A. 5), just as the 
consecrations of all other things are perpetual, and cannot be 
lost or repeated. Hence it is clear that the power of con- 
secrating is not lost by degradation. For, again, Augustine 
says [ibid.) : Both are sacraments, namely Baptism and 
Order, and both are given to a man with a kind of consecration ; 
the former , when he is baptized ; the latter when he is ordained ; 
and therefore it is not lawful for Catholics to repeat either of 
them. And thus it is evident that the degraded priest can 
perform this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. i. That Canon is speaking, not as by way of 
assertion, but by way of inquiry, as can be gleaned from the 
context. 

Reply Obj. 2. The bishop gives the priestly power of 
Order, not as though coming from himself, but instrumen- 
tally, as God's minister, and its effect cannot be taken away 
by man, according to Matth. xix. 6: What God hath joined 
together, let no man put asunder. And therefore the bishop 
cannot take this power away, just as neither can he who 
baptizes take away the baptismal character. 



428 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 82. Art. 8 

Reply Ohj. 3. Excommunication is medicinal. And there- 
fore the ministry of the priestly power is not taken away 
from the excommunicate, as it were, perpetually, but only 
for a time, that they may mend; but the exercise is with- 
drawn from the degraded, as though condemned perpetually. 



Ninth Article. 

whether it is permissible to receive communion from 
heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and 
to hear mass said by them ? 

We proceed thus to the Ninth A rticle : — 

Objection i. It seems that one may lawfully receive Com- 
munion from heretical, excommunicate, or even sinful 
priests, and to hear mass said by them. Because, as Augus- 
tine says [Contra Petilian. iii.), we should not avoid God's 
sacraments, whether they he given by a good man or by a wicked 
one. But priests, even if they be sinful, or heretics, or ex- 
communicate, perform a valid sacrament. Therefore it 
seems that one ought not to refrain from receiving Com- 
munion at their hands, or from hearing their mass. 

Obj. 2. Further, Christ's true body is figurative of His 
mystical body, as was said above (Q. LXVIL, A. 2). But 
Christ's true body is consecrated by the priests mentioned 
above. Therefore it seems that whoever belongs to His 
mystical body can communicate in their sacrifices. 

Obj. 3. Further, there are many sins graver than fornica- 
tion. But it is not forbidden to hear the masses of priests 
who sin otherwise. Therefore, it ought not to be forbidden 
to hear the masses of priests guilty of this sin. 

On the contrary, The Canon says (Dist. 32) : Let no one hear 
the mass of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a 
concubine. Moreover, Gregory says [Dial, iii.) that the 
faithless father sent an Arian bishop to his son, for him to 
receive sacrilegiously the consecrated Communion at his hands. 
But, when the Avian bishop arrived, God's devoted servant 
rebuked him, as was right for him to do. 



THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 429 

/ answer that, As was said above (AA. 5, 7), heretical, 
schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although 
they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they 
do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by 
using it. But whoever communicates with another who is 
in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's 
Second Canonical Epistle (11) that He that saith unto him, 
God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works. Con- 
sequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, 
or to assist at their mass. 

Still there is a difference among the above, because 
heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been for- 
bidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Euchar- 
istic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or 
receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not 
all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence 
from using this power: and so, although suspended by the 
Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to 
others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until 
the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive 
Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 
I Cor. V. II,. with such a one not so much as to eat, Augustine's 
gloss runs thus: In saying this he was unwilling for a 
man to he judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, 
or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's 
law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess 
of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted. 

Reply Obj. i . By refusing to hear the masses of such priests, 
or to receive Communion from them, we are not shunning 
God's sacraments; on the contrary, by so doing we are 
giving them honour (hence a host consecrated by such 
priests is to be adored, and if it be reserved, it can be con- 
sumed by a lawful priest) : but what we shun is the sin of 
the unworthy ministers. 

Reply Obj. 2. The unity of the mystical body is the fruit 
of the true body received. But those who receive or minister 
unworthily, are deprived of the fruit, as was said above 
(A. 7; Q. LXXX., A. 4). And therefore, those who belong 



430 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 82. Art. 9 

to the unity of the Faith are not to receive the sacrament 
from their dispensing. 

Reply Ohj. 3. Although fornication is not graver than 
other sins, yet men are more prone to it, owing to fleshly 
concupiscence. Consequently, this sin is specially inhibited 
to priests by the Church, lest anyone hear the mass of one 
living in concubinage. However, this is to be understood 
of one who is notorious, either from being convicted and 
sentenced, or from having acknowledged his guilt in legal 
form, or from it being impossible to conceal his guilt by any 
subterfuge. 

Tenth Article. 

whether it is lawful for a priest to refrain entirely 
from consecrating the eucharist ? 

We proceed thus to the Tenth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems to be lawful for a priest to refrain 
entirely from consecrating the Eucharist. Because, as it is 
the priest's office to consecrate the Eucharist, so it is like- 
wise to baptize and administer the other sacraments. But 
the priest is not bound to act as a minister of the other sacra- 
ments, unless he has undertaken the care of souls. There- 
fore, it seems that likewise he is not bound to consecrate the 
Eucharist except he be charged with the care of souls. 

Ohj. 2. Further, no one is bound to do what is unlawful 
for him to do ; otherwise he would be in two minds. But it 
is not lawful for the priest who is in a state of sin, or excom- 
municate, to consecrate the Eucharist, as was said above 
(A. 7). Therefore it seems that such men are not bound 
to celebrate, and so neither are the others; otherwise they 
would be gainers by their fault. 

Ohj. 3. Further, the priestly dignity is not lost by sub- 
sequent weakness: because Pope Gelasius (L) says [cf. 
Decret., Dist. 55): As the canonical precepts do not permit 
them who are feeble in body to approach the priesthood, so if 
anyone be disabled when once in that state, he cannot lose what 
he received at the time he was well. But it sometimes happens 



THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT 431 

that those who are aheady ordained as priests incur defects 
whereby they are hindered from celebrating, such as leprosy 
or epilepsy, or the like. Consequently, it does not appear 
that priests are bound to celebrate. 

On the contrary, Ambrose says in one of his Orations 
(xxxiii.) : It is a grave matter if we do not approach Thy altar 
with clean heart and pure hands ; hut it is graver still if while 
shunning sins we also fail to offer our sacrifice. 

I answer that, Some have said that a priest may lawfully 
refrain altogether from consecrating, except he be bound 
to do so, and to give the sacraments to the people, by reason 
of his being entrusted with the care of souls. 

But this is said quite unreasonably, because everyone is 
bound to use the grace entrusted to him, when opportunity 
serves, according to 2 Cor. vi. i : We exhort you that you 
receive not the grace of God in vain. But the opportunity of 
offering sacrifice is considered not merely in relation to the 
faithful of Christ to whom the sacraments must be adminis- 
tered, but chiefly with regard to God to Whom the sacrifice 
of this sacrament is offered by consecrating. Hence, it is 
not lawful for the priest, even though he has not the care 
of souls, to refrain altogether from celebrating; and he 
seems to be bound to celebrate at least on the chief festivals, 
and especially on those days on which the faithful usually 
communicate. And hence it is that (2 Machab. iv. 14) it 
is said against some priests that they were not now occupied 
about the offices of the altar, . . . despising the temple and 
neglecting the sacrifices. 

Reply Ohj. i. The other sacraments are accomplished in 
being used by the faithful, and therefore he alone is bound 
to administer them who has undertaken the care of souls. 
But this sacrament is performed in the consecration of the 
Eucharist, whereby a sacrifice is offered to God, to which the 
priest is bound from the Order he has received. 

Reply Ohj. 2. The sinful priest, if deprived by the Church's 
sentence from exercising his Order, simply or for a time, 
is rendered incapable of offering sacrifice ; consequently, 
the obligation lapses. But if not deprived of the power of 



432 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " g. 82. Art. 10 

celebrating, the obligation is not removed; nor is he in two 
minds, because he can repent of his sin and then celebrate. 
Reply Ohj. 3. Weakness or sickness contracted by a priest 
after his Ordination does not deprive him of his Orders ; but 
hinders him from exercising them, as to the consecration 
of the Eucharist: sometimes by making it impossible to 
exercise them, as, for example, if he lose his sight, or his 
fingers, or the use of speech; and sometimes on account of 
danger, as in the case of one suffering from epilepsy, or 
indeed any disease of the mind ; and sometimes, on account 
of loathsomeness, as is evident in the case of a leper, who 
ought not to celebrate in public: he can, however, say mass 
privately, unless the leprosy has gone so far that it has ren- 
dered him incapable owing to the wasting away of his limbs. 



QUESTION LXXXIII. 

OF THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT. 

[In Six Articles.) 

We have now to consider the Rite of this sacrament, under 
which head there are six points of inquiry, (i) Whether 
Christ is sacrificed in the celebration of this mystery ? (2) Of 
the time of celebrating. (3) Of the place and other matters 
relating to the equipment for this celebration. (4) Of the 
words uttered in celebrating this mystery. (5) Of the 
actions performed in celebrating this mystery. (6) Of the 
defects which occur in the celebration of this sacrament. 



First Article, 
whether christ is sacrificed in this sacrament ? 

We proceed thus to the First Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that Christ is not sacrificed in the 
celebration of this sacrament. For it is written (Heb. x. 14) 
that Christ by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are 
sanctified. But that oblation was His oblation. Therefore 
Christ is not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament. 

Obj. 2. Further, Christ's sacrifice was made upon the 
cross, whereon He delivered Himself for us, an oblation and 
a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness, as is said in Eph. 
V. 2. But Christ is not crucified in the celebration of this 
mystery. Therefore, neither is He sacrificed. 

Obj. 3. Further, as Augustine says [De Trin. iv.), in 
Christ's sacrifice the priest and the victim are one and the 
same. But in the celebration of this sacrament the priest 

m. 3 433 28 



434 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. i 

and the victim are not the same. Therefore, the celebration 
of this sacrament is not a sacrifice of Christ. 

On the contrary, Augustine says in the Liher Sentent. Prosp. 
{cf. Ep. xcviii.) : Christ was sacrificed once in Himself, and 
yet He is sacrificed daily in the Sacrament. 

I answer that. The celebration of this sacrament is called 
a sacrifice for two reasons. First, because, as Augustine 
says [Ad Simplician. ii.), the images of things are called by 
the names of the things whereof they are the images ; as when 
we look upon a picture or a fresco, we say, " This is Cicero and 
that is Sallust." But, as was said above (Q. LXXIX., A. i), 
the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing 
Christ's Passion, which is His true sacrifice. Accord- 
ingly the celebration of this sacrament is called Christ's 
sacrifice. Hence it is that Ambrose, in commenting on 
Heb. X. I, says: In Christ was offered up a sacrifice capable 
of giving eternal salvation ; what then do we do ? Do we not 
offer it up every day in memory of His death ? 

Secondly it is called a sacrifice, in respect of the effect 
of His Passion: because, to wit, by this sacrament, we are 
made partakers of the fruit of Our Lord's Passion. Hence 
in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after Pentecost) 
we say : Whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is cele- 
brated, the work of our redemption is enacted. Consequently, 
according to the first reason, it is true to say that Christ 
was sacrificed, even in the figures of the Old Testament: 
hence it is stated in the Apocalypse (xiii. 8) : Whose names 
are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, which was 
slain from the beginning of the world. But according to the 
second reason, it is proper to this sacrament for Christ to 
be sacrificed in its celebration. 

Reply Obj. i. As Ambrose says [ibid), there is but one 
victim, namely that which Christ offered, and which we offer, 
and not many victims, because. Christ was offered but once : 
and this latter sacrifice is the pattern of the former. For, 
just as what is offered everywhere is one body, and not many 
bodies, so also is it but one sacrifice. 

Reply Obj. 2. As the celebration of this sacrament is an 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 435 

image representing Christ's Passion, so the altar is repre- 
sentative of the cross itself, upon which Christ was sacrificed 
in His proper species. 

Reply Ohj. 3. For the same reason [cf. Reply Ohj. 2) the 
priest also bears Christ's image, in Whose person and by 
Whose power he pronounces the words of consecration, as 
is evident from what was said above (Q. LXXXIL, AA. 1,3). 
And so, in a measure, the priest and victim are one and the 
same. 



Second Article. 

whether the time for celebrating this mystery has 
been properly determined ? 

We proceed thus to the Second Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the time for celebrating this 
mystery has not been properly determined. For as was 
observed above (A. i), this sacrament is representative of 
Our Lord's Passion. But the commemoration of Our 
Lord's Passion takes place in the Church once in the year: 
because Augustine says {Enarr. ii. in Ps. xxi.) : Is not Christ 
slain as often as the Pasch is celebrated ? Nevertheless, the 
anniversary remembrance represents what took place in bygone 
days ; and so it does not cause us to be stirred as if we saw 
Our Lord hanging upon the cross. Therefore this sacrament 
ought to be celebrated but once a year. 

Obj. 2. Further, Christ's Passion is commemorated in the 
Church on the Friday before Easter, and not on Christmas 
Day. Consequently, since this sacrament is commemora- 
tive of Our Lord's Passion, it seems unsuitable for this sacra- 
ment to be celebrated thrice on Christmas Day, and to be 
entirely omitted on Good Friday. 

Obj. 3. Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the 
Church ought to imitate Christ's institution. But it was in 
the evening that Christ consecrated this sacrament. There- 
fore it seems that this sacrament ought to be celebrated at 
that time of day. 

Obj. 4. Further, as is set down in the Decretals [De Con- 



436 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 2 

seer., dist. i.), Pope Leo (I.) wrote to Dioscorus, Bishop of 
Alexandria, that it is permissible to celebrate mass in the first 
part of the day. But the day begins at midnight, as was 
said above (Q. LXXX., A. 8 ad 5). Therefore it seems 
that after midnight it is lawful to celebrate. 

Obj. 5. Further, in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sun- 
day after Pentecost) we say : Grant us, Lord, we beseech Thee, 
to frequent these mysteries. But there will be greater fre- 
quency if the priest celebrates several times a day. There- 
fore it seems that the priest ought not to be hindered from 
celebrating several times daily. 

On the contrary is the custom which the Church observes 
according to the statutes of the Canons. 

/ answer that, As stated above (A. i), in the celebration 
of this mystery, we must take into consideration the repre- 
sentation of Our Lord's Passion, and the participation of 
its fruits; and the time suitable for the celebration of this 
mystery ought to be determined by each of these considera- 
tions. Now since, owing to our daily defects, we stand in 
daily need of the fruits of Our Lord's Passion, this sacrament 
is offered regularly every day in the Church. Hence Our Lord 
teaches us to pray (Luke xi. 3) : Give us this day our daily 
bread : in explanation of which words Augustine says [De 
Verb. Dom. xxviii.) : If it be a daily bread, why do you take it 
once a year, as the Greeks have the custom in the east ? Receive 
it daily that it may benefit you every day. 

But since Our Lord's Passion was celebrated from the 
third to the ninth hour, therefore this sacrament is solemnly 
celebrated by the Church in that part of the day. 

Reply Obj. i. Christ's Passion is recalled in this sacrament, 
inasmuch as its effect flows out to the faithful; but at 
Passion- tide Christ's Passion is recalled inasmuch as it was 
wrought in Him Who is our Head. This took place but 
once; whereas the faithful receive daily the fruits of His 
Passion: consequently, the former is commemorated but 
once in the year, whereas the latter takes place every day, 
both that we may partake of its fruit and in order that we 
may have a perpetual memorial. 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 437 

Reply Ohj. 2. The figure ceases on the advent of the reaUty. 
But this sacrament is a figure and a representation of Our 
Lord's Passion, as stated above, x^nd therefore on the 
day on which Our Lord's Passion is recalled as it was really 
accomplished, this sacrament is not consecrated. Never- 
theless, lest the Church be deprived on that day of the fruit 
of the Passion offered to us by this sacrament, the body of 
Christ consecrated the day before is reserved to be con- 
sumed on that day; but the blood is not reserved, on ac- 
count of danger, and because the blood is more specially the 
image of Our Lord's Passion, as stated above (Q. LXXVIIL, 
A. 3, ad 2). Nor is it true, as some affirm, that the wine is 
changed into blood when the particle of Christ's body is 
dropped into it. Because this cannot be done o.therwise 
than by consecration under the due form of words. 

On Christmas Day, however, several masses are said on 
account of Christ's threefold nativity. Of these the first is 
His eternal birth, which is hidden in our regard; and there- 
fore one mass is sung in the night, in the Introit of which we 
say: The Lord said unto Me: Thou art My Son, this day 
have I begotten Thee. The second is His nativity in time, 
and the spiritual birth, whereby Christ rises as the day-star in 
our (Vulg., your) hearts (2 Pet. i. 19), and on this account 
the mass is sung at dawn, and in the Introit we say: The 
light will shine on usto-day. The third is Christ's temporal 
and bodily birth, according as He went forth from the vir- 
ginal womb, becoming visible to us through being clothed 
with flesh: and on that account the third mass is sung in 
broad daylight, in the Introit of which we say : A child is born 
to us. Nevertheless, on the other hand, it can be said that His 
eternal generation, of itself, is in the full light, and on this 
account in the gospel of the third mass mention is made of 
His eternal birth. But regarding His birth in the body, He 
was literally born during the night, as a sign that He came 
to the darknesses of our infirmity; hence also in the mid- 
night mass we say the gospel of Christ's nativity in the 
flesh. 

Likewise on other days upon which many of God's benefits 



43^ THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " q. 83. Art. 2 

have to be recalled or besought, several masses are cele- 
brated on one day, as for instance, one for the feast, and 
another for a fast or for the dead. 

Reply Ohj. 3. As already observed (Q. LXXIIL, A. 5). 
Christ wished to give this sacrament last of all, in order 
that it might be the deeper impressed in the hearts of the 
disciples; and therefore it was after supper, at the close of 
day, that He consecrated this sacrament and gave it to His 
disciples. But we celebrate at the hour when Our Lord 
suffered, i.e., either, as on feast-days, at the hour of Terce, 
when He was crucified by the tongues of the Jews (Mark 
XV. 25), and when the Holy Ghost descended upon the dis- 
ciples (Acts ii. 15) ; or, as when no feast is kept, at the hour 
of Sext, when He was crucified at the hands of the soldiers 
(John xix. 14), or, as on fasting days, at None, when crying 
out with a loud voice He gave up the ghost (Matth. xxvii. 
46, 50). 

Nevertheless the mass can be postponed, especially when 
Holy Orders have to be conferred, and still more on Holy 
Saturday; both on account of the length of the Office, and 
also because Orders belong to the Sunday, as is set forth in 
the Decretals (dist. 75). 

Masses, however, can be celebrated in the first part of the 
day, owing to any necessity; as is stated De Consecr., dist. i. 

Reply Ohj. 4. As a rule mass ought to be said in the day 
and not in the night, because Christ is present in this sacra- 
ment. Who says (John ix. 4, 5) : / must work the works of 
Him that sent Me, whilst it is day : because the night cometh 
when no man can work ; as long as I am in the world, I am 
the light of the world. Yet this should be done in such a 
manner that the beginning of the day is not to be taken 
from midnight; nor from sunrise, that is, when the substance 
of the sun appears above the earth; but when the dawn 
begins to show : because then the sun is said to be risen when 
the brightness of his beams appears. Accordingly it is 
written (Mark xvi. i) that the women came to the tomb 
the sun being now risen; though, as John relates (xx. i), 
while it was yet dark they came to the tomb. It is in this 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 439 

way that Augustine explains this difference {De Consens. 
Evang. iii.). 

Exception is made on the night of Christmas eve, when 
mass is celebrated, because Our Lord was born in the night 
{De Consecr., dist. i). And in like manner it is celebrated 
on Holy Saturday towards the beginning of the night, since 
Our Lord rose in the night, that is, when it was yet dark, 
before the sun's rising was manifest. 

Reply Ohj. 5. As is set down in the decree {De Consecr., 
dist. i), in virtue of a decree of Pope Alexander (11.) , it is 
enough for a priest to celebrate one mass each day, because 
Christ suffered once and redeemed the whole world ; and very 
happy is he who can worthily celebrate one mass. But there 
are some who say one mass for the dead, and another of the day, 
if need be. But I do not deem that those escape condemnation 
who presume to celebrate several masses daily, either for the 
sake of money, or to gain flattery from the laity. And Pope 
Innocent III. says (Extra, De Cclebr. Miss. Chap. Con- 
suluisti) that except on the day of Our Lord's birth, unless 
necessity urges, it suffices for a priest to celebrate only one 
mass each day. 

Third Article. 

whether this sacrament ought to be celebrated in a 
house and with sacred vessels ? 

We proceed thus to the Third A rticle : — 

Objection i. It seems that this sacrament ought not to be 
celebrated in a house and with sacred vessels. For this 
sacrament is a representation of Our Lord's Passion. 
But Christ did not suffer in a house, but outside the city 
gate, according to Heb. i. 12: fesus, that He might sanctify 
the people by His own blood, siffered without the gate. There- 
fore, it seems that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated 
in a house, but rather in the open air. 

Obf 2. Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the 
Church ought to imitate the custom of Christ and the 
apostles. But the house wherein Christ first wrought this 



440 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " q. 83. Art. 3 

sacrament was not consecrated, but merely an ordinary 
supper-room prepared by the master of the house, as related 
in Luke xxii. 11, 12. Moreover, we read (Acts ii. 46) that 
the apostles were continuing daily with one accord in the temple ; 
and, breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat 
with gladness. Consequently, there is no need for houses, 
in which this sacrament is celebrated, to be consecrated. 

Obj. 3. Further, nothing that is to no purpose ought to 
be done in the Church, which is governed by the Holy Ghost. 
But it seems useless to consecrate a church, or an altar, or 
suchlike inanimate things, since they are not capable of 
receiving grace or spiritual virtue. Therefore it is un- 
becoming for such consecrations to be performed in the 
Church. 

Obj. 4. Further, only Divine works ought to be recalled 
with solemnity, according to Ps. xci. 5: I shall rejoice in 
the works of Thy hands. Now the consecration of a church 
or altar, is the work of a man; as is also the consecration 
of the chalice, and of the ministers, and of other such things. 
But these latter consecrations are not commemorated in 
the Church. Therefore neither ought the -consecration of 
a church or of an altar to be commemorated with solemnity. 

Obj. 5. Further, the truth ought to correspond with the 
figure. But in the Old Testament, which was a figure of 
the New, the altar was not made of hewn stones: for, it is 
written (Exod. xx. 24) : You shall make an altar of earth unto 
Me, . . . and if thou make an altar of stone unto Me, thou 
shall not build it of hewn stones. Again, the altar is com- 
manded to be made of setim-wood, covered with brass (Exod. 
xxvii. I, 2), or with gold (ibid., xxv.). Consequently, it 
seems unfitting for the Church to make exclusive use of 
altars made of stone. 

Obj. 6. Further, the chalice with the paten represents 
Christ's tomb, which was hewn in a rock, as is narrated in the 
Gospels. Consequently, the chalice ought to be of stone, 
and not of gold or of silver or tin. 

Obj. 7. Further, just as gold is the most precious among 
the materials of the altar vessels, so are cloths of silk the 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 441 

most precious among other cloths. Consequently, since the 
chaHce is of gold, the altar cloths ought to be made of silk 
and not of linen. 

Ohj. 8. Further, the dispensing and ordering of the sacra- 
ments belong to the Church's ministers, just as the ordering 
of temporal affairs is subject to the ruling of secular princes; 
hence the Apostle says (i Cor. iv. i) : Let a man so esteem us 
as the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of 
God. But if anything be done against the ordinances of 
princes it is deemed void. Therefore, if the various items 
mentioned above are suitably commanded by the Church's 
prelates, it seems that the body of Christ could not be con- 
secrated unless they be observed ; and so it appears to follow 
that Christ's words are not sufficient of themselves for con- 
secrating this sacrament: which is contrarj^ to the fact. 
Consequently, it does not seem fitting for such ordinances 
to be made touching the celebration of this sacrament. 

On the contrary, The Church's ordinances are Christ's own 
ordinances; since He said (Matth. xviii. 20): Wherever two 
or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the 
midst of them. 

I answer that, There are two things to be considered re- 
garding the equipment of this sacrament : one of these belongs 
to the representation of the events connected with Our 
Lord's Passion; while the other is connected with the rever- 
ence due to the sacrament, in which Christ is contained 
verily, and not in figure only. 

Hence we consecrate those things which we make use of 
in this sacrament ; both that we may show our reverence for 
the sacrament, and in order to represent the holiness which 
is the effect of the Passion of Christ, according to Heb. 
xiii. 12: Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own 
blood, etc. 

Reply Obj. i. This sacrament ought as a rule to be cele- 
brated in a house, whereby the Church is signified, according 
to I Tim. iii. 15: That thou mayest know how thou oughtest 
to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of 
the living God. Because outside the Church there is no place 



442 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 3 

for the true sacrifice, as Augustine says {Liber Sent. Prosp. xv.) . 
And because the Church was not to be confined within the 
territories of the Jewish people, but was to be estabhshed 
throughout the whole world, therefore Christ's Passion was 
not celebrated within the city of the Jews, but in the open 
country, that so the whole world might serve as a house 
for Christ's Passion. Nevertheless, as is said inDe Consecr., 
dist. 1, if a church he not to hand, we permit travellers to 
celebrate mass in the open air, or in a tent, if there be a con- 
secrated, altar-table to hand, and the other requisites belonging 
to the sacred function. 

Reply Obj. 2. The house in which this sacrament is cele- 
. brated denotes the Church, and is termed a church ; and so 
it is fittingly consecrated, both to represent the holiness 
which the Church acquired from the Passion, as well as to 
denote the holiness required of them who have to receive 
this sacrament. — By the altar Christ Himself is signified, o^^ 
Whom the Apostle says (Heb. xiii. 15) : Through Him we 
offer a sacrifice of praise to God. Hence the consecration 
of the altar signifies Christ's holiness, of which it was said 
(Luke i. 35) : The Holy One born of thee shall be called the Son 
of God. Hence we read in De Consecr., dist. i : It has seemed 
pleasing for the altars to be consecrated not merely with the 
anointing of chrism, but likewise with the priestly blessing. 

And therefore, as a rule, it is not lawful to celebrate this 
sacrament except in a consecrated house. Hence it is 
enacted [De Consecr., dist. i) : Let no priest presume to say 
mass except in places consecrated by the bishop. And further- 
more because pagans and other unbelievers are not members 
of the Church, therefore we read [ibid.) : It is not lawful to 
bless a church in which the bodies of unbelievers are buried, 
but if it seem suitable for consecration, then, after removing 
the corpses and tearing down the walls or beams, let it be 
rebuilt. If, however, it has been already consecrated, and the 
faithful lie in it , it is lawful to celebrate mass therein. Never- 
theless in a case of necessity this sacrament can be per- 
formed in houses which have not been consecrated, or 
which have been profaned; but with the bishop's consent. 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 443 

Hence we read in the same distinction : We deem that masses 
are not to he celebrated everywhere, hut in places consecrated 
by the bishop, or where he gives permission. But not 
without a portable altar consecrated by the bishop: 
hence in the same distinction we read: We permit that, if 
the churches he devastated or burnt, masses may he celebrated 
in chapels, with a consecrated altar. For because Christ's 
holiness is the fount of all the Church's holiness, therefore 
in necessit}^ a consecrated altar suffices for performing this 
sacrament. And on this account a church is never con- 
secrated without consecrating the altar. Yet sometimes an 
altar is consecrated apart from the church, with the relics 
of the saints, whose lives are hidden with Christ in God 
(Col. iii. 3). Accordingly under the same distinction we 
read: It is our pleasure that altars, in which no relics of saints 
are found enclosed, he thrown down, if possible, by the bishops 
presiding over such places. 

Reply Obj. 3. The church, altar, and other like inanimate 
things are consecrated, not because they are capable of 
receiving grace, but because they acquire special spiritual 
virtue from the consecration, whereby they are rendered fit 
for the Divine worship, so that man derives devotion there- 
from, making him more fitted for Divine functions, unless 
this be hindered by want of reverence. Hence it is written 
(2 Mach. iii. 38) : There is undoubtedly in that place a 
certain power of God ; for He that hath His dwelling in the 
heavens is the visitor, and the protector of that place. 

Hence it is that such places are cleansed and exorcised 
before being consecrated, that the enemy's power may be 
driven forth. And for the same reason churches defiled by 
shedding of blood or seed are reconciled: because some 
machination of the enemy is apparent on account of the sin 
committed there. And for this reason we read in the same 
distinction: Wherever you find churches of the Arians, con- 
secrate them as Catholic churches without delay by means of 
devout prayers and rites. Hence, too, it is that some say 
with probability, that by entering a consecrated church one 
obtains forgiveness of venial sins, just as one does by the 



444 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 3 

sprinkling of holy water; alleging the words of Ps. Ixxxiv. 2, 
3 : Lord, Thou hast blessed Thy land. . . . Thou hast forgiven 
the iniquity of Thy people. And therefore, in consequence of 
the virtue acquired by a church's consecration, the conse- 
cration is never repeated. Accordingly we find in the same 
distinction the following words quoted from the Council of 
Nicea: Churches which have once been consecrated, must not 
be consecrated again, except they be devastated by fire, or defiled 
by shedding of blood or of anyone's seed ; because, just as a 
child once baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost, ought not to be baptized again, so neither 
ought a place, once dedicated to God, to be consecrated again, 
except owing to the causes mentioned above ; provided that the 
consecrators held faith in the Holy Trinity : in fact, those 
outside the Church cannot consecrate. But, as we read in 
the same distinction : Churches or altars of doubtful consecra- 
tion are to be consecrated anew. 

And since they acquire special spiritual virtue from their 
consecration, we find it laid down in the same distinction 
that the beams of a dedicated church ought not to be used 
for any other purpose, except it be for some other church, or 
else they are to be burnt, or put to the use of brethren in some 
monastery : but on no account are they to be discarded for 
works of the laity. We read there, too, that the altar covering, 
chair, candlesticks, and veil, are to be burnt when worn out ; 
and their ashes are to be placed in the baptistery, or in the 
walls, or else cast into the trenches beneath the flag-stones , so as 
not to be defiled by the feet of those that enter. 

Reply Obj. 4. Since the consecration of the altar signifies 
Christ's holiness, and the consecration of a house the holi- 
ness of the entire Church, therefore the consecration of a 
church or of an altar is more fittingly commemorated. 
And on this account the solemnity of a church dedication is 
observed for eight days, in order to signify the happy 
resurrection of Christ and of the Church's members. Nor 
is the consecration of a church or altar man's doing only, 
since it has a spiritual virtue. Hence in the same distinction 
[De Consecr.) it is said : The solemnities of the dedication of 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 445 

churches are to he solemnly celebrated each year : and that 
dedications are to he kept up for eight days, you will find in 
the third hook of Kings (viii. 66). 

Reply Ohj. 5. As we read in De Consecr., dist. i, altars, 
if not of stone, are not to he consecrated with the anointing of 
chrism. And this is in keeping with the signification of 
this sacrament; both because the altar signifies Christ, for 
in I Cor. x. 3, it is written, But the rock was Christ : and 
because Christ's body was laid in a stone sepulchre. This 
is also in keeping with the use of the sacrament. Because 
stone is solid, and may be found everywhere; which was 
not necessary in the Old Law, when the altar was made in 
one place. — As to the commandment to make the altar of 
earth, or of unhewn stones, this was given in order to remove 
idolatry. 

Reply Ohj. 6. As is laid down in the same distinction, 
formerly the priests did not use golden hut wooden chalices ; 
hut Pope Zephyrinus ordered the mass to he said with glass 
patens ; and suhsequently Pope Urban had everything made 
of silver. Afterwards it was decided that the Lord's chalice 
with the paten should be made entirely of gold, or of silver, or 
at least of tin. But it is not to he made of brass, or copper, 
because the action of the wine thereon produces verdigris, and 
provokes vomiting. But no one is to presume to sing mass with 
a chalice of wood or of glass, because as the wood is porous, 
the consecrated blood would remain in it; while glass is 
brittle, and there might arise danger of breakage; and the 
same applies to stone. Consequently, out of reverence for 
the sacrament, it was enacted that the chalice should be 
made of the aforesaid materials. 

Reply Ohj. 7. Where it could be done without danger, 
the Church gave order for that thing to be used which more 
expressively represents Christ's Passion. But there was not 
so much danger regarding the body which is placed on the 
corporal, as there is with the blood contained in the chalice. 
And consequently, although the chalice is not made of stone, 
yet the corporal is made of linen, since Christ's body was 
wrapped therein. Hence we read in an Epistle of Pope 



V 



446 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 3 

Silvester, quoted in the same distinction: By a unanimous 
decree we command that no one shall presume to celebrate 
the sacrifice of the altar upon a cloth of silk, or dyed material, 
hut upon linen consecrated by the bishop ; as Christ's body was 
buried in a clean linen winding-sheet. Moreover, linen 
material is becoming, owing to its cleanness, to denote purity 
of conscience, and, owing to the manifold labour with which 
it is prepg^red, to denote Christ's Passion. 

Reply Obj. 8. The dispensing of the sacraments belongs 
to the Church's ministers; but their consecration is from 
God Himself. Consequently, the Church's ministers can 
make no ordinances regarding the form of the consecration, 
and the manner of celebrating. And therefore, if the priest 
pronounces the words of consecration over the proper matter 
with the intention of consecrating, then, without every one 
of the things mentioned above, — namely, without house, 
and altar, consecrated chalice and corporal, and the other 
things instituted by the Church, — he consecrates Christ's 
body in very truth; yet he is guilty of grave sin, in not 
following the rite of the Church. 



Fourth Article. 

whether the words spoken in this sacrament are 

properly framed ? 

We proceed thus to the Fourth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the words spoken in this sacra- 
ment are not properly framed. For, as Ambrose says {De 
Sacram. iv.), this sacrament is consecrated with Christ's own 
words. Therefore no other words besides Christ's should be 
spoken in this sacrament. 

Obj. 2. Further, Christ's words and deeds are made known 
to us through the Gospel. But in consecrating this sacra- 
ment words are used which are not set down in the Gospels : 
for we do not read in the Gospel, of Christ lifting up His 
eyes to heaven while consecrating this sacrament: and 
sirailarly it is said in the Gospel: Take ye and eat [comedite) 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 447 

without the addition of the word all, whereas in celebrating 
this sacrament we say: Lifting up His eyes to heaven, and 
again, Take ye and eat [manducate) of this. Therefore such 
words as these are out of place when spoken in the celebra- 
tion of this sacrament. 

Ohj. 3. Further, all the other sacraments arj ordained for 
the salvation of all the faithful. But in the celebration of 
the other sacraments there is no common prayer put up for 
the salvation of all the faithful and of the departed. Conse- 
quently it is unbecoming in this sacrament. 

Ohj. 4. Further, Baptism especially is called the sacra- 
ment of faith. Consequently, the truths which belong to 
instruction in the faith ought rather to be given regarding 
Baptism than regarding this sacrament, such as the doctrine 
of the apostles and of the Gospels. 

Ohj. 5. Further, devotion on the part of the faithful is 
required in every sacrament. Consequently, the devotion 
of the faithful ought not to be stirred up in this sacrament 
more than in the others by Divine praises and by admoni- 
tions, such as. Lift up your hearts. 

Ohj. 6. Further, the minister of this sacrament is the 
priest, as stated above (Q. LXXXII., A. i). Consequently/, 
all the words spoken in this sacrament ought to be uttered 
by the priest, and not some by the ministers, and some by 
the choir. 

Ohj. 7. Further, the Divine power works this sacra- 
ment unfailingly. Therefore it is to no purpose that the 
priest asks for the perfecting of this sacrament, saying: 
Which ohlation do thou, God, in all, etc... 

Ohj. 8. Further, the sacrifice of the New Law is much 
more excellent than the sacrifice of the fathers of old. 
Therefore, it is unfitting for the priest to pray that this 
sacrifice may be as acceptable as the sacrifice of Abel, 
Abraham, and Melchisedech. 

Ohj. g. Further, just as Christ's body does not begin to 
be in this sacrament by change of place, as stated above 
(Q. LXXV., A. 2), so likewise neither does it cease to be 
there. Consequently, it is improper for the priest to ask: 



448 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 4 

Bid these things he home hy the hands of thy holy angel unto 
Thine altar on high. 

On the contrary, We find it stated in De Consecr., dist. i, 
that James, the hr other of the Lord according to the flesh, 
and Basil, hishop of Cesarea, edited the rite of celehrating the 
mass : and from their authority it is manifest that whatever 
words are employed in this matter, are chosen becomingly. 

I answer that. Since the whole mystery of our salvation is 
comprised in this sacrament, therefore is it performed with 
greater solemnity than the other sacraments. And since 
it is written (Eccles. iv. 17) : Keep thy foot when thou goest 
into the house of God ; and (Ecclus. xviii. 23) : Before prayer 
prepare thy soul, therefore the celebration of this mystery 
is preceded by a certain preparation in order that we may 
perform worthily that which follows after. The first part 
of this preparation is Divine praise, and consists in the 
Introit : according to Ps. xlix. 23 : The sacrifice of praise 
shall glorify me ; and there is the way hy which I will show 
him the salvation of God : and this is taken for the most part 
from the Psalms, or, at least, is sung with a Psalm, because, 
as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii.) : The Psalms comprise by 
way of praise whatever is contained in Sacred Scripture. 

The second part contains a reference to our present misery, 
by reason of which we pray for mercy, saying : Lord, have mercy 
on us, thrice for the Person of the Father, and Christ, have 
mercy on us, thrice for the Person of the Son, and Lord, have 
mercy on us, thrice for the Person of the Holy Ghost; against 
the threefold misery of ignorance, sin, and punishment; or 
else to express the circuminsession of all the Divine Persons. 

The third part commemorates the heavenly glory, to the 
possession of which, after this life of misery, we are 
tending, in the words, Glory he to God on high, which are 
sung on festival days, on which the heavenly glory is com- 
memorated, but are omitted in those sorrowful offices which 
commemorate our unhappy state. 

The fourth part contains the prayer which the priest 
makes for the people, that they may be made worthy of 
such great mysteries. 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 449 

There precedes, in the second place, the instruction of 
the faithful, because this sacrament is a mystery of faithy 
as stated above (Q. LXXVIIL, A. 3 ad 5). Now this 
instruction is given dispositively , when the Lectors and 
Subdeacons read aloud in the church the teachings of the 
prophets and apostles: after this lesson, the choir sing the 
Gradual, which signifies progress in life; then the Alleluia is 
intoned, and this denotes spiritual joy ; or in mournful Offtces 
the Tract, expressive of spiritual sighing; for all these 
things ought to result from the aforesaid teaching. But 
the people are instructed perfectly by Christ's teaching con- 
tained in the Gospel, which is read by the higher ministers, 
that is, by the Deacons. And because we believe Christ 
as the Divine truth, according to John viii. 46, /// tell you 
the truth, why do you not believe Me ? after the Gospel has 
been read, the Creed is sung, in which the people show that 
they assent by faith to Christ's doctrine. And it is sung 
on those festivals of which mention is made therein, as on 
the festivals of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the 
apostles, who laid the foundations of this faith, and on other 
such days. 

So then, after the people have been prepared and in- ^ 
structed, the next step is to proceed to the celebration of 
the mystery, which is both offered as a sacrifice, and 
consecrated and received as a sacrament: since first we ; 
have the oblation; then the consecration of the matter j 
offered; and thirdly, its reception. In regard to the obla- 
tion, two things are done, namely, the people's praise in 
singing the Offertory, expressing the joy of the offerers, and 
the priest's prayer asking for the people's oblation to be 
made acceptable to God. Hence David said (i Para. 
xxix. 17) : In the simplicity of my heart, I have . . . offered 
all these things : and I have seen with great joy Thy people, 
which are here present, offer Thee their offerings : and then 
he makes the following prayer : Lord God . . . keep . . . 
this will. 

Then, regarding the consecration, performed by super- 
natural power, the people are first of all excited to devotion 

III. 3 29 



450 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 4 

in the Preface, hence, they are admonished to lift up their 
hearts to the Lord, and therefore when the Preface is ended 
the people devoutly praise Christ's Godhead, saying with 
the angels: Holy, Holy, Holy ; and His humanit}^ saying 
with the children: Blessed is he that cometh. In the next 
place the priest makes a commemoration, first of those for 
whom this sacrifice is offered, namely, for the whole Church, 
and /or those set in high places (i Tim. ii. 2), and, in a special 
manner, of them who offer, or for whom the mass is offered. 
Secondly, he commemorates the saints, invoking their 
patronage for those mentioned above, when he says : — Com- 
municating with, and honouring the memory, etc. Thirdly, 
he concludes the petition when he says: Wherefore that this 
oblation, etc., in order that the oblation may be salutary 
to them for whom it is offered. 

Then he comes to the consecration itself. Here he asks 
first of all for the effect of the consecration, when he says: 
Which oblation do Thou, God, etc. Secondly, he performs 
the consecration using our Saviour's words, when he says: 
Who the day before, etc. Thirdly, he makes excuse for his 
presumption in obeying Christ's command, saying: Where- 
fore, calling to mind, etc. Fourthly, he asks that the sacri- 
fice accomplished may find favour with God, when he says : 
Look down upon them with a propitious, etc. Fifthly, he 
begs for the effect of this sacrifice and sacrament, first for 
the partakers, saying : We humbly beseech Thee ; then for 
the dead, who can no longer receive it, saying: Be mindful 
also, Lord, etc.; thirdly, for the priests themselves who 
offer, saying: And to us sinners, etc. 

Then follows the act of receiving the sacrament. First 
of all, the people are prepared for Communion ; first, by the 
common prayer of the congregation, which is the Lord's 
Prayer, in which we ask for our daily bread to be given us; 
and also by private prayer, which the priest puts up specially 
for the people, when he says: Deliver us, we beseech Thee, 
Lord, etc. Secondly, the people are prepared by the Pax 
which is given with the words. Lamb of God, etc., because 
this is the sacrament of unity and peace, as stated above 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 451 

(Q. LXXIIL, A. 4; Q. LXXIX., A. i). But in masses for 
the dead, in which the sacrifice is offered not for present 
peace, but for the repose of the dead, the Pax is omitted. 

Then follows the reception of the sacrament, the priest 
receiving first, and afterwards giving it to others, because, 
as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii.), he who gives Divine 
things to others ought first to partake thereof himself. 

Finally, the whole celebration of mass ends with the 
thanksgiving, the people rejoicing for having received the 
mystery (and this is the meaning of the singing after the 
Communion) ; and the priest returning thanks by prayer, 
as Christ, at the close of the supper with His disciples, said 
a hymn (Matth. xxvi. 30). 

Reply Ohj. i. The consecration is accomplished by Christ's 
words only; but the other words must be added to dispose 
the people for receiving it, as stated above. 

Reply Ohj. 2. As is stated in the last chapter of John 
{verse 25), Our Lord said and did many things which 
are not written down by the Evangelists; and among 
them is the uplifting of His eyes to heaven at the supper; 
nevertheless the Roman Church had it by tradition from 
the apostles. For it seems reasonable that He Who lifted 
up His eyes to the Father in raising Lazarus to life, as related 
in John xi. 41, and in the prayer which He made for the 
disciples (John xvii. i), had more reason to do so in insti- 
tuting this sacrament, as being of greater import. 

The use of the word manducate instead of comedite makes 
no difference in the meaning, nor does the expression signify, 
especially since those words are no part of the form, as stated 
above (Q. LXXVHL, A. i ad 2, 4). 

The additional word All is understood in the Gospels, 
although not expressed, because He had said (John vi. 54) : 
Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, . . . you shall not 
have life in you. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The Eucharist is the sacrament of the 
unity of the whole Church : and therefore in this sacrament, 
more than in the others, mention ought to be made of all 
that belongs to the salvation of the entire Church. 



452 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 4 

Reply Ohj. 4. There is a twofold instruction in the Faith: 
the first is for those receiving it for the first time, that is 
to say, for catechumens, and such instruction is given in 
connection with Baptism. The other is the instruction of 
the faithful who take part in this sacrament; and such 
instruction is given in connection with this sacrament. 
Nevertheless catechumens and unbelievers are not excluded 
therefrom. Hence in De Consecr., dist. i, it is laid down: 
Let the bishop hinder no one from entering the church, and 
hearing the word of God, be they Gentiles, heretics, or Jews, 
until the mass of the Catechumens begins, in which the instruc- 
tion regarding the Faith is contained. 

Reply Obj. 5. Greater devotion is required in this sacra- 
ment than in the others, for the reason that the entire Christ 
is contained therein. Moreover, this sacrament requires a 
more general devotion, i.e., on the part of the whole people, 
since for them it is offered; and not merely on the part of 
the recipients, as in the other sacraments. Hence Cyprian 
observes [De Or at. Domin. 31), The priest, in saying the 
Preface, disposes the souls of the brethren by saying, ' Lift up 
your hearts,' and when the people answer — * We have lifted 
them up to the Lord,' let them remember that they are to think 
of nothing else but God. 

Reply Obj. 6. As was said above [ad 3), those things are 
mentioned in this sacrament which belong to the entire 
Church; and consequently some things which refer to the 
people are sung by the choir, and some of these words are 
all sung by the choir, as though inspiring the entire people 
with them ; and there are other words which the priest begins 
and the people take up, the priest then acting as in the person 
of God; to show that the things they denote have come to 
the people through Divine revelation, such as faith and 
heavenly glory; and therefore the priest intones the Creed 
and the Gloria in excelsis Deo. Other words are uttered by 
the ministers, such as the doctrine of the Old and New 
Testament, as a sign that this doctrine was announced to 
the peoples through ministers sent by God. And there are 
other words which the priest alone recites, namely, such as 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 453 

belong to his personal office, that he may offer up gifts and 
prayers for the people (Heb. v. i). Some of these, however, 
he says aloud, namely, such as are common to priest and 
people alike, such as the common prayers ; other words, 
however, belong to the priest alone, such as the oblation 
and the consecration; consequently, the prayers that are 
said in connection with these, have to be said by the priest 
in secret. Nevertheless, in both he calls the people to atten- 
tion by saying : The Lord he with you, and he waits for them 
to assent by saying Amen. And therefore before the secret 
prayers he says aloud. The Lord he with you, and he con- 
cludes. For ever and ever. — Or the priest secretly pronounces 
some of the words as a token that regarding Christ's Passion 
the disciples acknowledged Him only in secret. 

Reply Obj. 7. The efficacy of the sacramental words can be 
hindered by the priest's intention. Nor is there anything 
unbecoming in our asking of God for what we know He will 
do, just as Christ (John xvii. i, 5) asked for His glorification. 

But the priest does not seem to pray there for the con- 
secration to be fulfilled, but that it may be fruitful in our 
regard, hence he says expressively : That it may become ' to 
us ' the body and the blood. Again, the words preceding these 
have that meaning, when he says: Vouchsafe to make this 
oblation blessed, i.e., according to Augustine (Paschasius, 
De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xii.), that we may receive a blessing, 
namely, through grace ; ' enrolled,' i.e., that we may he enrolled 
in heaven ; ' ratified,' i.e., that we may he incorporated in 
Christ; 'reasonable,' i.e., that we may be stripped of our 
animal sense ; ' acceptable,' i.e., that we who in ourselves are 
displeasing, may, by its means, be made acceptable to His only 
Son. 

Reply Obj. 8. Although this sacrament is of itself prefer- 
able to all ancient sacrifices, yet the sacrifices of the men of 
old were most acceptable to God on account of their devo- 
tion. Consequently the priest asks that this sacrifice may 
be accepted by God through the devotion of the offerers, 
just as the former sacrifices were accepted by Him. 

Reply Obi 9. The priest does not pray that the sacra- 



454 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 4 

mental species may be borne up to heaven; nor that Christ's 
true body may be borne thither, for it does not cease to be 
there; but he offers this prayer for Christ's mystical body, 
which is signified in this sacrament, that the angel standing 
by at the Divine mysteries may present to God the prayers 
of both priest and people, according to Apoc. viii. 4: And 
the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended 
up before God, from the hand of the angel. But God's altar 
on high means either the Church triumphant, unto which 
we pray to be translated, or else God Himself, in Whom 
we ask to share ; because it is said of this altar (Exod. xx. 26) : 
Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar, i.e., thou shalt make 
no steps towards the Trinity. Or else by the angel we are 
to understand Christ Himself, Who is the Angel of great 
counsel (Isa. ix. 6: Septuag. version), Who unites His mystical 
body with God the Father and the Church triumphant. 

And from this the mass derives its name (missa) ; because 
the priest sends (mittit) his prayers up to God through the 
angel, as the people do through the priest. Or else because 
Christ is the victim sent (missa) to us: accordingly the 
deacon on festival days dismisses the people at the end of 
the mass, by saying: Ite, missa est, that is, the victim has 
been sent (missa est) to God through the angel, so that it 
may be accepted by God. 



Fifth Article. 

whether the actions performed in celebrating this 
sacrament are becoming ? 

We proceed thus to the Fifth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the actions performed in cele- 
brating this mystery are not becoming. For, as is evident 
from its form, this sacrament belongs to the New Testament. 
But under the New Testament the ceremonies of the Old 
are not to be observed, such as that the priests and ministers 
were purified with water when they drew nigh to offer up 
the sacrifice: for we read (Exod. xxx. 19, 20): Aaron and 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 455 

Ms sons shall wash their hands and feet . . . when they are 
going into the tabernacle of the testimony, . . . and when they 
are to come to the altar. Therefore it is not fitting that the 
priest should wash his hands when celebrating mass. 

Ohj. 2. Further [ibid. 7), the Lord commanded Aaron to 
burn sweet-smelling incense upon the altar which was before 
the propitiatory : and the same action was part of the cere- 
monies of the Old Law. Therefore it is not fitting for the 
priest to use incense during mass. 

Obj. 3. Further, the ceremonies performed in the sacra- 
ments of the Church ought not to be repeated. Conse- 
quently it is not proper for the priest to repeat the sign of 
the cross many times over this sacrament. 

Obj. 4. Further, the Apostle says (Heb. vii. 7) : And 
without all contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the 
better. But Christ, Who is in this sacrament after the con- 
secration, is much greater than the priest. Therefore 
quite unseemingly the priest, after the consecration, 
blesses this sacrament, by signing it with the cross. 

Obj. 5. Further, nothing which appears ridiculous ought 
to be done in one of the Church's sacraments. But it seems 
ridiculous to perform gestures, e.g., for the priest to stretch 
out his arms at times, to join his hands, to join together his 
fingers, and to bow down. Consequently, such things 
ought not to be done in this sacrament. 

Obj. 6. Further, it seems ridiculous for the priest to turn 
round frequently towards the people, and often to greet 
the people. Consequently, such things ought not to be done 
in the celebration of this sacrament. 

Obj. 7. Further, the Apostle (i Cor. xiii.) deems it improper 
for Christ to be divided. But Christ is in this sacrament 
after the consecration. Therefore it is not proper for the 
priest to divide the host. 

Obj. 8. Further, the ceremonies performed in this sacra- 
ment represent Christ's Passion. But during the Passion 
Christ's body was divided in the places of the five wounds. 
Therefore Christ's body ought to be broken into five parts 
rather than into three. 



456 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 5 

Ohj. 9. Further, Christ's enthe body is consecrated in this 
sacrament apart from the blood. Consequently, it is not 
proper for a particle of the body to be mixed with the blood. 

Ohj. 10. Further, just as, in this sacrament, Christ's body 
is set before us as food, so is His blood, as drink. But in 
receiving Christ's body no other bodily food is added in 
the celebration of the mass. Therefore, it is out of place 
for the priest, after taking Christ's blood, to receive other 
wine which is not consecrated. 

Ohj. II. Further, the truth ought to be conformable with 
the figure. But regarding the Paschal Lamb, which was a 
figure of this sacrament, it was commanded that nothing 
of it should remain until the morning. It is improper there- 
fore for consecrated hosts to be reserved, and not consumed 
at once. 

Ohj. 12. Further, the priest addresses in the plural number 
those who are hearing mass, when he says, The Lord he 
with you : and. Let us return thanks. But it is out of keeping 
to address one individual in the plural number, especially 
an inferior. Consequently it seems unfitting for a priest to 
say mass with only a single server present. Therefore in 
the celebration of this sacrament it seems that some of the 
things done are out of place. 

On the contrary, The custom of the Church stands for these 
things; and the Church cannot err, since she is taught by 
the Holy Ghost. 

/ answer that, As was said above (Q. LX., A. 6), there is 
a twofold manner of signification in the sacraments, by words, 
and by actions, in order that the signification may thus be 
more perfect. Now, in the celebration of this sacrament 
words are used to signify things pertaining to Christ's 
Passion, which is represented in this sacrament; or again, 
pertaining to Christ's mystical body, which is signified there- 
in; and again, things pertaining to the use of this sacra- 
ment, which use ought to be devout and reverent. Con- 
sequently, in the celebration of this mystery some things 
are done in order to represent Christ's Passion, or the dis- 
posing of His mystical body, and some others are done 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 457 

which pertain to the devotion and reverence due to this 
sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. i. The washing of the hands is done in the 
celebration of mass out of reverence for this sacrament; 
and this for two reasons: first, because we are not wont to 
handle precious objects except the hands be washed; hence 
it seems indecent for anyone to approach so great a sacra- 
ment with hands that are, even literally, unclean. Secondly, 
on account of its signification, because, as Dionysius says 
[Eccl. Hier. iii.), the washing of the extremities of the limbs 
denotes cleansing from even the smallest sins, according to 
John xiii. lo : He that is washed needeth not but to wash his 
feet. And such cleansing is required of him who approaches 
this sacrament ; and this is denoted by the confession which 
is made before the Introit of the mass. Moreover, this was 
signified by the washing of the priests under the Old Law, 
as Dionysius says (ibid.). However, the Church observes 
this ceremony, not because it was prescribed under the Old 
Law, but because it is becoming in itself, and therefore 
instituted by the Church. Hence it is not observed in the 
same way as it was then : because the washing of the feet is 
omitted, and the washing of the hands is observed ; for this 
can be done more readily, and suffices for denoting perfect 
cleansing. For, since the hand is the organ of organs {De 
Anima iii.), all works are attributed to the hands: hence 
it is said in Ps. xxv. 6: I will wash my hands among the 
innocent. 

Reply Obj. 2. We use incense, not as commanded by a 
ceremonial precept of the Law, but as prescribed by the 
Church; accordingly we do not use it in the same fashion 
as it was ordered under the Old Law. It has reference to 
two things: first, to the reverence due to this sacrament, 
i.e., in order by its good odour, to remove any disagreeable 
smell that may be about the place; secondly, it serves 
to show the effect of grace, wherewith Christ was filled as 
with a good odour, according to Gen. xxvii. 27: Behold, the 
odour of my son is like the odour of a ripe field ; and from 
Christ it spreads to the faithful by the work of His ministers, 



458 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 5 

according to 2 Cor. ii. 14: He manifesteth the odour of his 
knowledge by us in every place ; and therefore when the altar 
which represents Christ, has been incensed on every side, 
then all are incensed in their proper order. 

Reply Ohj. 3. The priest, in celebrating the mass, makes 
use of the sign of the cross to signify Christ's Passion which 
was ended upon the cross. Now, Christ's Passion was 
accomplished in certain stages. First of all there was 
Christ's betrayal, which was the work of God, of Judas, 
and of the Jews; and this is signified by the triple sign of 
the cross at the words. These gifts, these presents, these holy 
unspotted sacrifices. 

Secondly, there was the selling of Christ. Now He was 
sold to the Priests, to the Scribes, and to the Pharisees: 
and to signify this the threefold sign of the cross is repeated, 
at the words, blessed, enrolled, ratified. Or again, to signify 
the price for which He was sold, viz., thirty pence. And 
a double cross is added at the words — that it may become 
to us the Body and the Blood, etc., to signify the person of 
Judas the seller, and of Christ Who was sold. 

Thirdly, there was the foreshadowing of the Passion at 
the last supper. To denote this, in the third place, two 
crosses are made, one in consecrating the body, the other 
in consecrating the blood; each ti e while saying. He 
blessed. 

Fourthly, there was Christ's Passion itself. And so in 
order to represent His five wounds, in the fourth place, there 
is a fivefold signing of the cross at the words, a pure Victim, 
a holy Victim, a spotless Victim, the holy bread of eternal life, 
and the cup of everlasting salvation. 

Fifthly, the outstretching of Christ's body, and the 
shedding of the blood, and the fruits of the Passion, are signi- 
fied by the triple signing of the cross at the words, as many 
as shall receive the body and blood, may be filled with every 
blessing, etc. 

Sixthly, Christ's threefold prayer upon the cross is repre- 
sented; one for His persecutors when He said. Father, forgive 
them ; the second for deliverance from death, when He 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 459 

cried, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me ? the 
third referring to His entrance into glory, when He said, 
Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit ; and in order 
to denote these there is a triple signing with the cross made 
at the words, Thou dost sanctify, quicken, bless. 

Seventhly, the three hours during which He hung upon 
the cross, that is, from the sixth to the ninth hour, are re- 
presented; in signification of which we make once more a 
triple sign of the cross at the words. Through Him, and 
with Him, and in Him. 

Eighthly, the separation of His soul from the body is 
signified by the two subsequent crosses made over the 
chalice. 

Ninthly, the resurrection on the third day is represented 
by the three crosses made at the words — May the peace of 
the Lord he ever with you. 

In short, we may say that the consecration of this sacra- 
ment, and the acceptance of this sacrifice, and its fruits, 
proceed from the virtue of the cross of Christ, and therefore 
wherever mention is made of these, the priest makes use of 
the sign of the cross. 

Reply Ohj. 4. After the consecration, the priest makes the 
sign of the cross, not for the purpose of blessing and con- 
secrating, but only for calling to mind the virtue of the cross, 
and the manner of Christ's suffering, as is evident from 
what has been said {ad 3) . 

Reply Ohj. 5. The actions performed by the priest in mass 
are not ridiculous gestures, since they are done so as to 
represent something else. The priest in extending his arms 
signifies the outstretching of Christ's arms upon the cross. — 
He also lifts up his hands as he prays, to point out that his 
prayer is directed to God for the people, according to 
Lament, iii. 41: Let us lift up our hearts with our hands to 
the Lord in the heavens : and Exod. xvii. 11 : And when Moses 
lifted up his hands Israel overcame. That at times he joins 
his hands, and bows down, praying earnestly and humbly, 
denotes the humihty and obedience of Christ, out of which 
He suffered. — He closes his fingers, i.e., the thumb and first 



46o THE '* SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 5 

finger, after the consecration, because, with them, he had 
touched the consecrated body of Christ; so that if any par- 
ticle cHng to the fingers, it may not be scattered: and this 
belongs to the reverence for this sacrament. 

Reply Ohj. 6. Five times does the priest turn round 
towards the people, to denote that Our Lord manifested 
Himself five times on the day of His Resurrection, as stated 
above in the treatise on Christ's Resurrection (Q. LV., A. 3, 
Ohj. 3). — But the priest greets the people seven times, 
namely, five times, by turning round to the people, and 
twice without turning round, namely, when he says, The Lord 
he with you before the Preface, and again when he says. May 
the peace of the Lord he ever with you : and this is to denote 
the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost. But a bishop, 
when he celebrates on festival days, in his first greeting 
says. Peace he to you, which was Our Lord's greeting after the 
Resurrection, Whose person the bishop chiefly represents. 
. Reply Ohj. 7. The breaking of the host denotes three 
things: first, the rending of Christ's body, which took place 
in the Passion; secondly, the distinction of His mystical 
-body according to its various states; and thirdly, the dis- 
tribution of the graces which flow from Christ's Passion, as 
Dionysius observes {Eccl. Hier. iii.). Hence this breaking 
does not imply severance in Christ. 

Reply Ohj. 8. As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found 
in the Decretals [De Consecr., dist. ii.), the Lord's hody is 
threefold ; the part offered and put into the chalice signifies 
Christ's risen hody, namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed 
Virgin, and the other saints, if there be any, who are already 
in glory with their bodies. The part consumed denotes those 
still walking upon earth, because while living upon earth 
they are united together by this sacrament ; and are bruised 
by the passions, just as the bread eaten is bruised by the 
teeth. The part reserved on the altar till the close of the mass, 
is His hody hidden in the sepulchre, hecause the hodies of the 
saints will he in their graves until the end of the world : though 
their souls are either in purgatory, or in heaven. However, 
this rite of reserving one part on the altar till the close of 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 461 

the mass is no longer observed, on account of the danger; 
nevertheless, the same meaning of the parts continues, 
which some persons have expressed in verse, thus : 

The host being rent — what is dipped, means the blest; 
What is dry, means the living; what is kept, those at rest. 

Others, however, say that the part put into the chalice 
denotes those still living in this world; while the part kept 
outside the chalice denotes those fully blessed both in soul 
and body; while the part consumed means the others. 

Reply Ohj. 9. Two things can be signified by the chalice : 
first, the Passion itself, which is represented in this sacra- 
ment, and according to this, by the part put into the chalice 
are denoted those who are still sharers of Christ's sufferings; 
secondly, the enjoyment of the Blessed can be signified, 
which is likewise foreshadowed in this sacrament; and 
therefore those whose bodies are already in full beatitude, 
are denoted by the part put into the chalice. And it is to 
be observed that the part put into the chalice ought not to 
be given to the people to supplement the communion, 
because Christ gave dipped bread only to Judas the 
betrayer. 

Reply Ohj. 10. Wine, by reason of its humidity, is capable 
of washing, consequently it is received in order to rinse the 
mouth after receiving this sacrament, lest any particles 
remain: and this belongs to reverence for the sacrament. 
Hence (Extra, De Celehratione misscB, chap. Ex parte), it 
is said: The priest should always cleanse his mouth with wine 
after receiving the entire sacrament of Eucharist : except when 
he has to celebrate another mass on the same day, lest from 
taking the ablution-wine he be prevented from celebrating 
again ; and it is for the same reason that wine is poured 
over the fingers with which he had touched the body of 
Christ. 

Reply Obj. 11. The truth ought to be conformable with the 
figure, in some respect: namely, because a part of the host 
consecrated, of which the priest and ministers or even the 
people communicate, ought not to be reserved until the day 



462 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 5 

following. Hence, as is laid down {De Consecr., dist. il^^ 
Pope Clement (I.) ordered that as many hosts are to he 
offered on the altar as shall sujfice for the people ; should any 
he left over, they are not to he reserved until the morrow, hut 
let the clergy carefully consume them with fear and tremhling. 
Nevertheless, since this sacrament is to be received daily, 
whereas the Paschal Lamb was not, it is therefore necessary 
for other hosts to be reserved for the sick. Hence we read 
in the same distinction : Let the priest always have the Eucha- 
rist ready, so that, when anyone fall sick, he may take Com- 
munion to him at once, lest he die without it. 

Reply Oh]. 12. Several persons ought to be present at the 
solemn celebration of the mass. Hence Pope Soter says 
{De Consecr., dist. i) : It has also heen ordained, that no priest 
is to presume to celebrate solemn mass, unless two others he 
present answering him, while he himself makes the third ; 
because when he says in the plural, ' The Lord he with you,' 
and again in the Secrets, ' Pray ye for me,'' it is most becoming 
that they should answer his greeting. Hence it is for the sake 
of greater solemnity that we find it decreed {ibid.) that a 
bishop is to solemnize mass with several assistants. Never- 
theless, in private masses it suffices to have one server, who 
takes the place of the whole Catholic people, on whose 
behalf he makes answer in the plural to the priest. 



Sixth Article. 

whether the defects occurring during the celebra- 
tion of this sacrament can be sufficiently met 
by observing the church' s statutes ? 

We proceed thus to the Sixth Article : — 

Objection i. It seems that the defects occurring during 
the celebration of this sacrament cannot be sufficiently met 
by observing the statutes of the Church. For it sometimes 
happens that before or after the consecration the priest dies, 
or goes mad, or is hindered by some other infirmity from 
receiving the sacrament and completing the mass. Conse- 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 463 

quently it seems impossible to observe the Church's statute, 
whereby the priest consecrating must communicate of his 
own sacrifice. 

Obj. 2. Further, it sometimes happens that, before the 
consecration, the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk 
something, or that he is in mortal sin, or under excommuni- 
cation, which he did not remember previously. Therefore, 
in such a dilemma a man must necessarily commit mortal 
sin by acting against the Church's statute, whether he 
receives or not. 

Obj. 3. Further, it sometimes happens that a fly or a 
spider, or some other poisonous creature falls into the chalice 
after the consecration; or even that the priest comes to 
know that poison has been put in by some evilly disposed 
person in order to kill him. Now in this instance, if he 
takes it, he appears to sin by killing himself, or by tempting 
God: also in like manner if he does not take it, he sins by 
acting against the Church's statute. Consequently, he 
seems to be perplexed, and under necessity of sinning, 
which is not becoming. 

Obj. 4. Further, it sometimes happens from the server's 
want of heed that water is not added to the chalice, or even 
the wine overlooked, and that the priest discovers this. 
Therefore he seems to be perplexed likewise in this case, 
whether he receives the body without the blood, thus 
making the sacrifice to be incomplete, or whether he receives 
neither the body nor the blood. 

Obj. 5. Further, it sometimes happens that the priest 
cannot remember having said the words of consecration, 
or other words which are uttered in the celebration of this 
sacrament. In this case he seems to sin, whether he repeats 
the words over the same matter, which words possibly he 
has said before, or whether he uses bread and wine which 
are not consecrated, as if they were consecrated. 

Obj. 6. Further, it sometimes comes to pass owing to the 
cold that the host will slip from the priest's hands into the 
chalice, either before or after the breaking. In this case 
then the priest will not be able to comply with the Church's 



464 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 6 

rite, either as to the breaking, or else as to this, that only a 
third part is put into the chalice. 

Obj. 7. Further, sometimes, too, it happens, owing to the 
priest's want of care, that Christ's blood is spilt, or that he 
vomits the sacrament received, or that the consecrated hosts 
are kept so long that they become corrupt, or that they are 
nibbled by mice, or lost in any manner whatsoever ; in which 
cases it does not seem possible for due reverence to be 
shown towards this sacrament, as the Church's ordinances 
require. It does not seem then that such defects or dangers 
can be met by keeping to the Church's statutes. 

On the contrary, Just as God does not command an im- 
possibility, so neither does the Church. 

/ answer that, Dangers or defects happening to this sacra- 
ment can be met in two ways : first, by preventing any such 
mishaps from occurring: secondly, by dealing with them 
in such a way, that what may have happened amiss is put 
right, either by employing a remedy, or at least by repent- 
ance on his part who has acted negligently regarding this 
sacrament. 

Reply Obj. i. If the priest be stricken by death or grave 
sickness before the consecration of Our Lord's body and 
blood, there is no need for it to be completed by another. 
But if this happens after the consecration is begun, for 
instance, when the body has been consecrated and before 
the consecration of the blood, or even after both have been 
consecrated, then the celebration of the mass ought to be 
finished by someone else. Hence, as is laid down (Decret. 
vii., q. i), we read the following decree of the (Seventh) 
Council of Toledo : We consider it to be fitting that when the 
sacred mysteries are consecrated by priests during the time of 
mass, if any sickness supervenes, in consequence of which 
they cannot finish the mystery begun, let it be free for the bishop 
or another priest to finish the consecration of the office thus 
begun. For nothing else is suitable for completing the mys- 
teries commenced, unless the consecration be completed either 
by the priest who began it, or by the one who follows him : 
because they cannot be completed except they be performed in 



THE RITE OF THIS SACKAMENT 465 

perfect order. For since we are all one in Christ, the change 
of persons makes no difference, since unity of faith insures 
the happy issue of the mystery. Yet let not the course we 
propose for cases of natural debility, he presumptuously 
abused : and let no minister or priest presume ever to leave 
the Divine offices unfinished, unless he be absolutely prevented 
from continuing. If anyone shall have rashly presumed to 
do so, he will incur sentence of excommunication. 

Reply Obj. 2. Where difficulty arises, the less dangerous 
course should always be followed. But the greatest danger 
regarding this sacrament lies in whatever may prevent its 
completion, because this is a heinous sacrilege; while that 
danger is of less account which regards the condition of the 
receiver. Consequently, if after the consecration has been 
begun the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk 
anything, he ought nevertheless to complete the sacrifice 
and receive the sacrament. Likewise, if he recalls a sin 
committed, he ought to make an act of contrition, with 
the firm purpose of confessing and making satisfaction for 
it: and thus he will not receive the sacrament unworthily, 
but with profit. The same applies if he calls to mind that 
he is under some excommunication; for he ought to make 
the resolution of humbly seeking absolution ; and so he will 
receive absolution from the invisible High Priest Jesus Christ 
for his act of completing the Divine mysteries. 

But if he calls to mind any of the above facts previous to 
the consecration, I should deem it safer for him to interrupt 
the mass begun, especially if he has broken his fast, or is 
under excommunication, unless grave scandal were to be 
feared. 

Reply Obj. 3. If a fly or a spider falls into the chalice 
before consecration, or if it be discovered that the wine is 
poisoned, it ought to be poured out, and after purifying the 
chalice, fresh wine should be served for consecration. — But if 
anything of the sort happen after the consecration, the insect 
should be caught carefully and washed thoroughly, then 
burnt, and the ablution, together with the ashes, thrown 
into the sacrarium. If it be discovered that the wine has 

"1- 6 30 



466 THE " SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 6 

been poisoned, the priest should neither receive it nor ad- 
minister it to others on any account, lest the life-giving 
chalice become one of death, but it ought to be kept in a 
suitable vessel with the relics: and in order that the sacra- 
ment may not remain incomplete, he ought to put other 
wine into the chalice, resume the mass from the consecration 
of the blood, and complete the sacrifice. 

Reply Ohj. 4. If before the consecration of the blood, and 
after the consecration of the body the priest detect that 
either the wine or the water is absent, then he ought at once 
to add them and consecrate. But if after the words of con- 
secration he discover that the water is absent, he ought 
notwithstanding to proceed straight on, because the addi- 
tion of the water is not necessary for the sacrament, as 
stated above (Q. LXXIV., A. 7) : nevertheless the person 
responsible for the neglect ought to be punished. And on 
no account should water be mixed with the consecrated 
wine, because corruption of the sacrament would ensue in 
part, as was said above (Q. LXXVIL, A. 8). But if after 
the words of consecration the priest perceive that no wine has 
been put in the chalice, and if he detect it before receiving 
the body, then rejecting the water, he ought to pour in wine 
with water, and begin over again the consecrating words 
of the blood. But if he notice it after receiving the body, 
he ought to procure another host which must be consecrated 
together with the blood ; and I say so for this reason, because 
if he were to say only the words of consecration of the blood, 
the proper order of consecrating would not be observed; 
and, as is laid down by the Council of Toledo, quoted above 
[ad i), sacrifices cannot he perfect, except they he performed 
in perfect order. But if he were to begin from the consecra- 
tion of the blood, and were to repeat all the words which 
follow, it would not suffice, unless there was a consecrated 
host present, since in those words there are things to be 
said and done not only regarding the blood, but also re- 
garding the body; and at the close he ought once more to 
receive the consecrated host and blood, even if he had already 
taken the water which was in the chalice, because the pre- 



THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT 467 

cept of the completing this sacrament is of greater weight 
than the precept of receiving the sacrament while fasting, 
as stated above (Q. LXXX., A. 8). 

Reply Obj. 5. Although the priest may not recollect having 
said some of the words he ought to say, he ought not to be 
disturbed mentally on that account; for a man who utters 
many words cannot recall to mind all that he has said; 
unless perchance in uttering them he adverts to something 
connected with the consecration; for so it is impressed on 
the memory. Hence, if a man pays attention to what he 
is saying, but without adverting to the fact that he is saying 
these particular words, he remembers soon after that he has 
said them; for, a thing is presented to the memory under 
the formality of the past {De Mem. et Remin. i.). 

But if it seem to the priest that he has probably omitted 
some of the words that are not necessary for the sacrament, 
I think that he ought not to repeat them on that account, 
changing the order of the sacrifice, but that he ought to 
proceed : but if he is certain that he has left out any 
of those that are necessary for the sacrament, namely, 
the form of the consecration, since the form of the con- 
secration is necessary for the sacrament, just as the matter 
is, it seems that the same thing ought to be done as was 
stated above {ad 4) with regard to defect in the matter, 
namely, that he should begin again with the form of the 
consecration, and repeat the other things in order, lest the 
order of the sacrifice be altered. 

Reply Obj. 6. The breaking of the consecrated host, and 
the putting of only one part into the chalice, regards the 
mystical body, just as the mixing with water signifies the 
people, and therefore the omission of either of them causes 
no such imperfection in the sacrifice, as calls for repetition 
regarding the celebration of this sacrament. 

Reply Obj. 7. According to the decree, De Consecr., dist. ii., 
quoting a decree of Pope Pius (I.), If from neglect any of 
the blood falls upon a hoard which is fixed to the ground, let 
it he taken up with the tongue, and let the hoard be scraped. 
But if it be not a hoard, let the ground be scraped, and 



p^ 



468 THE '' SUMMA THEOLOGICA " Q. 83. Art. 6 

the scrapings burned, and the ashes buried inside the altar, 
and let the priest do penance for forty days. But if a drop fall 
from the chalice 07i to the altar, let the minister suck up the drop, 
and do penance during three days ; if it falls upon the altar cloth 
and penetrates to the second altar cloth, let him do four days' 
penance ; if it penetrates to the third, let him do nine days 
penance ; if to the fourth, let him do twenty days penance ; 
and let the altar linens which the drop touched be washed three 
times by the priest, holding the chalice below, then let the water 
be taken and put away nigh to the altar. It might even be 
drunk by the minister, unless it might be rejected from 
nausea. Some persons go further, and cut out that part 
of the hnen, which they burn, putting the ashes in the 
altar or down the sacrarium. And the Decretal continues 
with a quotation from the Penitential of Bede the Priest: 
//, owing to drunkenness or gluttony, anyone vomits up the 
Eucharist, let him do forty days penance, if he be a layman ; 
but let clerics or monks, deacons and priests, do seventy days 
penance ; and let a bishop do ninety days. But if they vomit 
from sickness, let them do penance for seven days. And in the 
same distinction, we read a decree of the (Fourth) Council of 
Aries: They who do not keep proper custody over the sacra- 
ment, if a mouse or other animal consume it, must do forty days 
penance : he who loses it in a church, or if a part fall and be not 
found, shall do thirty days penance. And the priest seems to 
deserve the same penance, who from neglect allows the hosts 
to putrefy. And on those days the one doing penance ought to 
fast, and abstain from Communion. However, after weighing 
the circumstances of the fact and of the person, the said 
penances may be lessened or increased. But it must be 
observed that wherever the species are found to be entire, 
they must be preserved reverently, or consumed; because 
Christ's body is there so long as the species last, as stated 
above (Q. LXXVIL, AA. 4, 5). But if it can be done con- 
veniently, the things in which they are found are to be burnt, 
and the ashes put in the sacrarium, as was said of the 
scrapings of the altar-table, here above. 

■■/■ 



Printed in England. 



a 



Date Due 




^m 



1 9 2000 



Library Bureau Cat. No. 1137 



W 



ELLS BINDERY 

ALTHAM, MASS. 

APR. 1950 







BX 1749 . T5 1912 3:3 

Thomas, 1225?-i274 

The '♦Summa theologica" of 
St, Thomas Aquinas